DUKE  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARY 
DURHAM,  N.  C. 


Rec’d 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2019  with  funding  from 
Duke  University  Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/georgiaunionin1803shry 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION 
IN  1850 


A  THESIS 


IN  HISTORY 

PRESENTED  TO  THE  FACULTY  OF  THE  GRADUATE  SCHOOL  OF  THE 
UNIVERSITY  OF  PENNSYLVANIA  IN  PARTIAL  FULFILLMENT 
OF  THE  REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE 
OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


RICHARD  HARRISON  SHJ£YOCK 


5  0  ZO 


PHILADELPHIA 

1926 


1 


COPYRIGHT  1926 
BY  DUKE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


PRINTED  BY 

THE  SEEMAN  PRESS,  INC. 


hro  uSr- 


To 

zJlfC.  H .  S.  and  6.  Q. 


•U020 


PREFACE 


The  present  study  was  submitted  in  partial  fulfill¬ 
ment  of  the  requirements  for  the  degree  of  doctor  of 
philosophy  at  the  University  of  Pennsylvania.  It  was 
undertaken  at  the  suggestion  of  Dean  Herman  V. 
Ames,  under  whose  direction  it  was  carried  out  and  to 
whom  I  am  primarily  indebted.  Professor  St.  George 
L.  Sioussat  gave  many  valuable  suggestions  and  he,, 
with  Professor  A.  E.  McKinley,  read  and  criticised 
the  proof.  My  colleague,  Professor  W.  K.  Boyd,  and 
Dean  R.  P.  Brooks,  of  the  University  of  Georgia, 
were  also  kind  enough  to  criticise  the  study  in  proof. 
I  owe  much  to  the  painstaking  assistance  of  my  col¬ 
league,  Professor  W.  T.  Laprade,  supervising  editor 
of  The  Duke  University  Press. 

Professor  Ulrich  B.  Phillips,  of  the  University  of 
Michigan,  generously  placed  at  my  disposal  his  unsur¬ 
passed  knowledge  of  the  history  of  the  ante-bellum 
South,  and  his  papers  relating  to  Georgia.  Professor 
Arthur  C.  Cole,  of  the  Ohio  State  University,  made 
helpful  suggestions  on  the  general  theme  of  the  study. 
Professor  Phillips,  Professor  Cole,  and  Professor  J.  S. 
Bassett,  on  behalf  of  the  American  Historical  Associa¬ 
tion,  gave  permission  to  reproduce  one  of  the  maps  in 
Professor  Phillips’  Georgia  and  State  Rights  (herein 
listed  as  Map  No.  5)  and  a  portion  of  one  of  the  maps 
in  Professor  Cole’s  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South 
(herein  listed  as  Map  No.  2).  All  maps,  except  Bon¬ 
ner’s  of  1849,  and  those  noted,  are  copies  of  my  own 
originals  prepared  by  Mrs.  J.  R.  Chamberlain  of 
Raleigh. 


viii  GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 

Professor  C.  S.  Boucher,  of  the  University  of 
Chicago,  kindly  placed  at  my  disposal  such  of  the 
unpublished  Calhoun  letters  as  related  especially  to 
Georgia.  Mr.  Warren  Grice,  of  Macon,  permitted  me 
to  examine  several  of  his  valuable  papers  relating  to 
Georgia  history.  I  am  indebted  to  Miss  Margaret  A. 
Cosens,  of  Savannah,  for  permission  to  use  the  papers 
of  her  grandfather,  Dr.  Richard  Arnold.  Mr.  William 
Harden  and  Mr.  Alexander  R.  Lawton,  of  Savannah, 
and  other  members  of  the  Georgia  Historical  Society, 
offered  courteous  assistance  in  the  use  of  materials  in 
that  city.  Mr.  Wymberley  W.  De  Renne,  of  Savan¬ 
nah,  kindly  permitted  the  use  of  valuable  materials 
in  the  De  Renne  Library  of  Georgia  History. 

R.  H.  S. 

Sachems  Head,  Conn., 

September,  1926. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 


INTRODUCTION 

3 

CHAPTER 

I 

ECONOMIC  FACTORS 

9 

CHAPTER 

II 

SOCIAL  GROUPS 

64 

CHAPTER 

III 

PARTY  CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION 

90 

CHAPTER 

IV 

STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 

126 

CHAPTER 

V 

THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849 

178 

CHAPTER 

VI 

WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 

217 

CHAPTER 

VII 

THE  CLEARING,  1850 

264 

CHAPTER 

VIII 

THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 

343 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

- 

365 

INDEX 

391 

LIST  OF  MAPS 


Facing  Page 


MAP  NO.  1  GEORGIA  IN  1850  10 

MAP  NO.  2  DISTRIBUTION  OF  THE  RACES  14 

MAP  NO.  3  DISTRIBUTION  OF  WEALTH  22 

MAP  NO.  4  DISTRIBUTION  OF  ILLITERACY  24 

MAP  NO.  5  DISTRIBUTION  OF  POLITICAL  PARTIES 

(PRESIDENTIAL  ELECTION  OF  1848)  109 

MAP  NO.  6  CONGRESSIONAL  DISTRICTS,  1850  171 

MAP  NO.  7  THE  STATE  CONVENTION  VOTE,  1850  320 

BONNER’S  MAP  OF  1849  (INDICATING  COUNTIES  AND 
RAILROADS,  AS  WELL  AS  USUAL 


FEATURES)  back  cover 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


INTRODUCTION 


The  period  of  promise  in  the  ante-bellum  history  of 
the  lower  South  was  that  of  the  generation  following 
the  War  of  1812.  This  was  no  doubt  due  to  the  simple 
fact  that  the  history  of  the  lower  South  in  this  period 
was  in  large  measure  a  part  of  a  still  greater  story — 
the  story  of  the  growing  West.  It  was  the  day  of  ex¬ 
pansion,  with  dreams  of  still  greater  expansion  just 
ahead.  In  the  South,  however,  this  great  era  was 
made  possible  only  by  the  development  of  several  insti¬ 
tutions  and  circumstances  peculiar  to  the  section, — not 
one  “peculiar  institution,”  as  is  often  stated,  but  sev¬ 
eral;  namely,  the  plantation  system,  the  system  of 
slave  labor  and  invested  capital,  and  at  last,  but  not 
least,  the  race  question. 

To  say  that  the  development  of  the  lower  South  was 
made  possible  by  these  institutions — for  even  the 
Negro  was  in  his  way  an  institution — is  to  say  that 
the  very  expansion  of  the  section  contained  the  germ 
of  its  own  decline.  This  relative  decline,  as  compared 
with  the  mounting  prosperity  of  the  North,  may  be 
dated  roughly  from  the  thirties  and  was  becoming  in¬ 
creasingly  apparent  through  the  forties.  Far-sighted 
southern  leaders  did  not  shut  their  eyes  to  the  out¬ 
standing  economic  phenomena  of  their  time  and  made 
strenuous  efforts  to  revive  the  prosperity  of  their  sec¬ 
tion.  Unfortunately  there  were  other  factors  involved 
in  southern  backwardness  besides  southern  institu¬ 
tions.  It  happened  that,  when  the  economic  life  of  the 
South  was  already  threatened  with  ills  from  within,  it 
was  also  subjected  to  criticism  and  attack  from  without. 


4 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


First  came  the  onslaught  of  the  business  men  of; 
the  North,  who  demanded  tariff  protection  for  their 
growing  industries  at  the  expense  of  southern  agricul¬ 
ture.  Then  came  the  attack  of  northern  idealists,  who 
demanded  that  the  entire  labor  system  upon  which  a 
large  part  of  southern  agriculture  was  based  should  be 
abolished, — and  with  it  the  whole  social  system 
with  which  that  labor  seemed  inextricably  associated. 
Either  of  these  attacks  might  have  been  expected, 
under  even  the  best  of  circumstances,  to  have  elicited 
serious  protest  in  the  South.  Coming  as  they  did,  how¬ 
ever,  when  the  southern  leaders  were  already  conscious 
of  a  relative  economic  backwardness,  they  were  bound 
to  result  in  the  most  bitter  antagonisms.  It  seemed  to 
southern  men  that  the  North,  not  content  with  its  own 
growing  prosperity,  was  intent  upon  destroying  not 
only  what  prosperity  there  was  in  the  South,  but  also 
the  very  civilization  of  the  section  itself.  The  motives 
of  many  northern  antislavery  idealists  were  of  the 
highest,  and  their  moral  principles  were  coming  to 
receive  the  commendation  of  the  civilized  world,  but 
these  facts  could  hardly  have  been  expected,  under  the 
circumstances,  to  detract  greatly  from  the  resentment 
and  the  apprehension  which  their  criticisms  aroused 
in  the  South. 

Now  there  were  certain  obvious  remedies  for  the 
tariff  and  antislavery  attacks  of  the  North — at  least 
there  were  expedients  which  seemed  to  promise  a 
remedy.  There  was  nullification,  and,  if  this  did  not 
avail,  there  was  secession  from  the  union  with  the 
offending  section.  Certain  southern  leaders  began  to 
urge  the  employment  of  these  expedients  from  1828 
on.  It  is  at  least  a  striking  coincidence  that  the  state 
which  was  most  retrogressive  in  the  lower  South; 


INTRODUCTION 


5 


namely,  South  Carolina,  was  also  the  one  whose  leaders 
first  and  most  insistently  urged  these  radical  remedies. 
This  suggests  the  view  urged  by  some  northern  critics 
at  the  time ;  namely,  that  the  southern  people  who  suf¬ 
fered  most  from  the  ills  of  their  economic  position  were 
those  most  apt  to  blame  all  such  ills  upon  northern 
attacks  and  the  least  apt  to  realize  that  many  of  their 
troubles  might  be  inherent  in  their  own  insitutions. 

This  also  suggests  the  significance  of  another  fact 
that  is  so  obvious  as  sometimes  to  be  overlooked.  All 
portions  of  the  lower  South  were  not  equally  back¬ 
ward  in  their  economic  life.  In  general,  the  newer 
lands,  for  obvious  reasons,  were  more  productive  and 
prosperous  than  the  older.  Mississippi  was  better  off 
than  South  Carolina.  The  outstanding  prosperity  of 
the  section  in  1850  was,  however,  to  be  found  in  Geor¬ 
gia,  the  “Empire  State  of  the  South” ;  which,  after 
sharing  in  the  general  depression  of  the  early  forties, 
forged  rapidly  ahead  towards  the  end  of  the  decade, 
and  by  1850  was  renowned  for  its  railroads  and  manu¬ 
factures  as  well  as  for  its  agriculture.  Here  the  prop¬ 
erty-holding  classes  tended  to  view  their  own  pros¬ 
perity  as  evidence  that  the  South  could  yet  make  pro¬ 
gress  within  the  national  Union.  If  Georgia  could 
prosper,  despite  northern  tariffs  and  criticisms,  then 
the  ills  from  which  the  neighboring  “Palmettodom” 
suffered  must  be  latent  in  the  latter’s  own  agricultural 
system  rather  than  in  the  machinations  of  the  Yankees. 

Northern  attacks,  felt  the  conservative  Georgia 
leaders,  need  not  force  the  state  to  secede  until  they 
showed  signs  of  developing  into  an  ultimate  menace  to 
southern  society.  Until  such  time,  so  radical  a  measure 
as  secession  would  only  involve  the  nation  in  the  dan¬ 
ger  of  civil  war,  a  danger  that  all,  and  especially  the 


6 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


property-holding  classes,  would  wish  to  avoid  as  long 
as  possible.  In  a  word,  Georgians  did  not  wish  to  run 
a  risk  of  civil  war  unless  the  risk  involved  in  the  main¬ 
tenance  of  the  Union  proved  an  even  greater  one. 
Sincere  attachment  to  the  “Union  of  the  Fathers” 
tended  to  strengthen  this  general  attitude. 

In  1847  came  the  first  evidence  which  was  apt  to  be 
convincing  to  the  mass  of  the  people  of  the  lower  South 
that  the  antislavery  attack  was  about  to  become  an 
ultimate  menace.  In  that  year  the  antislavery  forces 
in  Congress  attempted  to  pass  the  Proviso  denying  to 
the  South  what  it  considered  its  rightful  share  of  the 
territories  of  the  new  West.  This  seemed  an  earnest 
of  what  was  to  come  in  the  future — further  restric¬ 
tions  and,  finally,  abolition  and  chaos.  The  lower  South 
as  a  whole  began  for  the  first  time  to  think  seriously  of 
secession.  In  1850,  however,  the  conservative  North 
rallied  to  the  support  of  the  conservative  South,  the 
Proviso  was  finally  defeated,  and  a  “compromise” 
achieved. 

A  serious  secession  movement,  however,  was  by 
this  time  under  way,  led  as  usual  by  South  Carolina. 
Georgia,  it  was  hoped,  would  “lead  off,”  with  the  secret 
prompting  and  backing  of  the  sister  state.  This  hope 
was  destined  to  dramatic  disappointment,  largely  for 
three  reasons.  In  the  first  place,  it  happened  that  for 
years  a  most  unsisterly  animosity  had  obtained  between 
Georgia  and  Carolina,  a  feeling  based  upon  varied 
economic  and  social  circumstances  and  arising  partly 
from  the  simple  fact  of  geographical  propinquity.  If 
“Palmettodom”  willed  secession,  that  in  itself  tended 
to  make  the  Empire  State  cleave  to  the  Union. 

Second,  it  happened  that  Georgia  was  one  of  those 
southern  states  whose  territory  extended  well  up  into 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


the  hill  country  of  the  Appalachians,  and  the  people 
of  this  section  of  the  state  displayed  the  typical  moun¬ 
taineers’  indifference  to  controversies  concerning  slav¬ 
ery.  They  were  not  only  indifferent  to  the  interests  of 
slavery,  but  they  were  in  addition  devotedly  attached 
to  the  Union.  The  secessionists’  appeal,  therefore,  was 
bound  to  be  ignored  in  this  part  of  the  state. 

Third,  and  doubtless  most  important,  was  the  fact 
that  the  secession  appeal  reached  Georgia  at  a  time 
when  she  was  enjoying  the  peak  of  her  new  prosperity. 
Such  a  period  was  no  time  for  revolution,  unless  it  was 
clear  that  revolution  was  necessary.  Georgians  looked 
longingly  for  the  slightest  of  signs  that  the  North 
would  offer  some  compromise — some  earnest  of  future 
fair-dealing  that  would  make  secession  unnecessary — 
and  they  found  it  in  the  Clay  compromise.  Once  this 
compromise  was  offered,  there  was  no  serious  danger 
that  Georgia  would  secede. 

What  would  have  occurred  if  the  state  had  been, 
like  South  Carolina,  in  a  state  of  economic  depression 
and  in  a  correspondingly  depressed  state  of  mind,  is 
another  matter.  So,  too,  is  the  question  as  to  why 
Georgia  did  secede  ten  years  later,  when  prosperity  (at 
least  so  far  as  cotton  prices  were  concerned)  still  ob¬ 
tained.  The  answer  to  this  last  may  lie  in  the  fact  that 
in  1860  the  election  of  a  “black-Republican”  president 
did  imply  in  unmistakable  terms  an  ultimate  menace  to 
southern  institutions.  The  state  would  doubtless  have 
seceded  in  1850  if  the  Proviso,  also  a  final  threat,  had 
passed  at  that  time.  The  view  here  taken  is  not  that 
prosperity  inclined  Georgia  to  surrender,  but  simply 
that  prosperity  did  incline  the  state  to  compromise. 

If  this  view  of  the  matter  seems  to  overemphasize 
the  significance  of  economic  factors,  the  facts  that 


8 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


follow  must  speak  for  themselves.  It  seemed  desirable 
to  the  writer  that,  in  addition  to  the  narration  of  the 
political  developments  involved  in  the  secession  and 
Union  movements  of  1844-1852,  some  examination 
should  be  made  of  the  economic  and  social  bases  of  the 
political  phenomena  concerned. 

The  decision  of  Georgia  to  hold  to  the  Union  in 
1850  was  one  of  the  outstanding  events  of  the  national 
crisis  of  that  year.  This  decision  was  indeed  a  cardi¬ 
nal  factor  in  the  salvation  of  the  Union  then,  and  per¬ 
haps  later,  in  that  it  gave  check  to  both  the  northern 
and  the  southern  extremists.  The  significance  of  its 
influence  is  perhaps  not  yet  generally  realized.  The 
state  did  much  to  check  the  extremists  of  the  South 
because  of  its  acceptance  of  the  compromise.  It  did 
something  to  check  the  extremists  of  the  North,  al¬ 
though  in  a  more  indirect  fashion.  The  warning 
given  in  the  “Georgia  Platform,”  that  thus  far  could 
the  North  go  and  no  farther,  was  heeded  by  northern 
conservatives,  who  in  turn  were  able  to  restrain  to 
some  extent  the  activities  of  northern  extremists.  It 
is  hoped  that  the  influence  exerted  by  the  Georgia  deci¬ 
sion  in  both  sections  will  appear  as  the  narrative  pro¬ 
ceeds. 


CHAPTER  I 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 

For  some  years  preceding  the  American  Civil  War 
it  was  customary  to  speak  of  Georgia  as  the  “Key¬ 
stone”  or  “Empire  State  of  the  South.”  Such  phrases 
were,  to  be  sure,  chiefly  popular  with  Georgians,  but 
their  use  was  by  no  means  limited  to  native  sons  and 
seems  to  have  implied  a  consciousness  that  the  state 
held  among  its  neighbors  a  position  of  unusual  impor¬ 
tance.  When,  therefore,  a  great  political  crisis  arose 
in  1850,  which  involved  the  relationship  of  the  south¬ 
ern  states  to  the  Union,  it  was  quite  natural  that  Geor¬ 
gia  should  play  a  leading  part  in  determining  the  atti¬ 
tude  of  the  lower  South  toward  the  Union.  The 
political  preeminence  of  the  state  was  in  large  part  the 
result  of  economic  preeminence,  and  an  understanding 
of  the  one  involves  some  knowledge  of  the  other.  In¬ 
deed,  all  phases  of  the  crisis  of  1850  in  Georgia,  and 
of  the  influence  which  Georgia  exerted  upon  the  lower 
South,  were  intimately  related  to  the  economic  and 
social  conditions  obtaining  within  the  state  during  that 
period. 

Georgia  was  the  keystone  of  an  arch  formed  by  the 
Seaboard  states  to  the  north  and  the  Gulf  states  to 
the  west.  The  “Keystone  State”  reached  from  the  sea- 
coast  on  the  east  across  a  wide  plain  and  piedmont  area 
to  the  hill  country  of  the  Appalachians  in  the  north¬ 
west.  It  was  divided  into  several  well  defined  sections, 
running  generally  parallel  with  the  coast  from  north¬ 
east  to  southwest  across  the  width  of  the  state. 


10 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  first  of  these  sections  was  that  of  the  coast 
lands,  including  the  “sea  islands.”  Along  the  shore  of 
the  mainland  stretched  the  “tide  swamp  lands,”  which  • 
also  reached  inland  along  the  banks  of  the  rivers  in  the 
tidewater  area.  Here,  in  the  region  of  the  sweeping 
“Marshes  of  Glynn,”  were  the  most  valuable  lands  in 
the  state  in  1850. 1  At  no  great  distance  inland,  how¬ 
ever,  the  fertile  swamp  was  succeeded  by  the  most 
desolate  belt  in  Georgia,  the  aptly  named  “Pine  Bar¬ 
rens,”  where  there  was  a  poor,  siliceous  soil  covered 
with  rank  brush  and  “scrub  pine.” 

At  about  one  third  the  distance  from  the  shore  to 
the  mountains  the  Pine  Barrens  merged  gradually 
into  “Central  Georgia.”  This,  the  most  important  area 
in  the  state  in  1850,  may  be  bounded  on  the  south  by 
the  fall  line,  crossing  the  state  from  northeast  to  the 
southwest  and  marked  by  the  cities  that  naturally  de¬ 
veloped  upon  the  rivers  along  this  line.  Since  the 
Pine  Barrens  did  not  actually  reach  to  the  fall  line, 
however,  the  southern  boundary  of  Central  Georgia 
is  here  considered  as  running  somewhat  below  that 
line  and  as  extending  downward  to  include  the  fertile 
lands  along  the  Savannah  River.2  The  southwest 
portion  of  the  state,  while  similar  in  general  character 
to  Central  Georgia,  was  developed  at  a  later  period 
and  was  sometimes  spoken  of  distinctively  as  “South¬ 
west  Georgia.”  On  the  north,  a  series  of  granite 
ridges,  crowned  in  DeKalb  County  by  the  famous 
“Stone  Mountain,”  marked  the  limits  of  Central  and 

1  J.  D.  B.  DeBow,  Industrial  Resources  of  the  Southern  and  Western 
States,  I.  355 ;  G.  M.  White,  Georgia  Statistics,  pp.  37,  284.  For  pleasing 
pictures  of  the  coastal  lands  about  1850,  see  Georgia  B.  Conrad,  Reminis¬ 
cences  of  a  Southern  Woman,  pp.  1-10;  E.  J.  Thomas,  Memoirs  of  a 
Southerner,  pp.  7-24. 

1  For  all  of  these  areas,  the  river  systems,  etc.,  see  Bonner’s  map  of 
1849  and  map  No.  1,  p.  10. 


MAP  NO.  1 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


11 


the  beginning  of  “Upper  Georgia.”  This  area  includ¬ 
ed,  geologically  speaking,  the  Upper  Piedmont,  the 
Blue  Ridge,  the  Valley,  and  the  main  ridges  of  the 
Appalachians,  which  ran  athwart  the  northwestern 
tip  of  the  state.3 

The  soil  of  Central  and  Southwest  Georgia  was  a 
fairly  rich  loam  resting  upon  a  clay  foundation.  The 
general  fertility  of  these  sections  adapted  them  to  the 
cultivation  of  cotton,  and  they  came  to  form  the  Geor¬ 
gia  “Black  Belt.”  When  exhausted  by  cotton  cultiva¬ 
tion  and  left  fallow,  however,  the  “scrub  pine”  eventu¬ 
ally  appeared,  and  the  country  assumed  an  appearance 
similar  to  that  of  the  Pine  Barrens.  In  Upper 
Georgia  the  soils  of  the  valleys  were  fertile,  but 
the  cool  climate  of  this  region  adapted  it  to  the 
cultivation  of  fruits  and  grains  rather  than  of  the 
lowland  staples.  The  hills  afforded  some  mineral 
wealth  and  an  abundance  of  potential  water  power.4 

The  settlement  of  the  several  Georgia  sections  had 
progressed  slowly  until  about  1800,  when  only  the  coast 
lands  and  “Middle  Georgia”  along  the  Savannah  river 
had  been  occupied.  After  that  date  the  extinction  of 
Indian  titles  and  the  adoption  of  a  liberal  land  lottery 
system5  enabled  Carolina  and  Virginia  settlers  to  push 
steadily  across  Central  Georgia.  The  whole  belt  of 
Central  Georgia  had  been  occupied  by  1830,  but  South¬ 
west  Georgia  remained  a  sparsely  settled  country  until 

3  For  careful  geographical  descriptions  of  the  Georgia  sections  see 
R.  M.  Harper,  “Development  of  Agriculture  in  Upper  Georgia,”  Georgia 
■Historical  Quarterly ,  VI.  No.  1,  pp.  6,  7 ;  R.  P.  Brooks,  The  Agrarian 
Revolution  in  Georgia,  pp.  69-80  (published  as  University  of  Wisconsin 
Bulletin  No.  639,  History  Series,  III.  No.  3). 

4  DeBow,  op.  cit.,  pp.  356,  362,  363;  White,  op.  cit.,  pp.  150,  151,  212, 
439;  A.  Sherwood,  Gaseteer  of  Georgia  (fourth  edition,  1860),  p.  194. 

6  For  the  history  and  legal  details  of  Georgia  land  administration 
see  S.  G.  McLendon,  History  of  the  Public  Domain  of  Georgia,  pp. 
122-129. 


12 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  forties.  Meanwhile,  some  scattered  settlements 
had  been  made  in  the  Pine  Barrens,  and  poor  white 
“squatters”  had  drifted  in  from  no  one  knew  where,8 
to  occupy  the  “piney  woods.”  The  soils  of  this  region 
began  to  give  out  under  cotton  cultivation  as  early  as 
1820,  save  on  the  alluvial  bottoms  along  the  larger 
rivers.  Here  a  few  prosperous  plantations  were  main¬ 
tained  as  late  as  1850.7 

The  late  expulsion  of  the  Indians  from  Upper 
Georgia  left  the  Blue  Ridge  and  Valley  regions  un¬ 
settled  by  whites  until  the  later  thirties,,  when  the  last 
of  the  tribesmen  abandoned  fields  and  cabins  and 
trekked  west  across  the  Mississippi.  Just  before  this 
occurred,  gold  had  been  discovered  in  the  hills,  and  the 
first  white  settlers  came  in  on  the  tide  of  a  small 
“gold  rush”  that  suggests  the  California  epic  of  the 
next  decade.8  Squatters  occupied  old  Cherokee  cabins 
or  built  new  ones,  wherein  they  were  still  living  in 
1850.  This  settlement  was  supplemented  in  the  forties 
by  poor  farmers,  who  moved  up  from  Central  Geor¬ 
gia,  and  by  an  immigration  of  mountaineers  from  the 
adjacent  hill  country  of  eastern  Tennessee.9  These 
elements  blended  into  a  rough  and  ready  yoemanry  pos¬ 
sessing  the  usual  virtues  and  defects  of  that  class. 
Much  of  “Cherokee  Georgia”  was  still  in  the  frontier¬ 
farming  stage  of  development  in  1850. 

If  a  “gold  rush”  brought  settlers  to  Upper  Geor¬ 
gia,  then,  by  the  same  token,  it  was  a  “cotton  rush” 

*  There  was  a  tradition  in  Georgia  that  they  were  descendants  of 
Oglethorpe’s  paupers,  who  had  moved  up  the  rivers  from  the  coast. 
Some  of  these  squatters  may  have  migrated  across  the  Savannah  from 
similar  pine  barren  districts  in  South  Carolina. 

'  F.  L.  Olmsted,  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  II.  385. 

8  There  are  interesting  pictures  of  the  Georgia  gold  rush  by  G.  An¬ 
drews,  Reminiscences  of  an  Old  Georgia  Lawyer,  pp.  73,  187. 

'  Milledgeville  Federal  Union,  October  24,  1847. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


13 


that  had  carried  settlers  across  Central  Georgia.  The 
extension  of  cotton  cultivation  in  this  area  led  naturally 
to  two  other  demands,  in  addition  to  the  ever  present 
desire  for  more  land.  There  was,  first,  the  demand 
for  more  labor  to  work  the  fields,  and,  second,  the  need 
for  better  transportation  facilities  wherewith  to  market 
their  product.  Both  desiderata  were  destined  to  influ¬ 
ence  greatly  the  entire  subsequent  history  of  Georgia 
and  of  the  Gulf  states,  which  were  experiencing  a 
similar  development  in  the  same  period. 

There  was  never  any  doubt  that  the  bulk  of  un¬ 
skilled  labor  in  Central  Georgia  would  be  supplied  by 
Negro  slaves.  It  was  customary  for  incoming  whites, 
to  bring  their  slaves  with  them,  and  this  custom  was 
the  chief  source  of  Negro  immigration.  Many  were 
brought  in,  however,  via  the  domestic  slave  trade,  par¬ 
ticularly  after  about  1830,  and  an  uncertain  number 
through  the  illicit  foreign  trade.10  During  the  third 
and  fourth  decades,  when  the  percentage  of  the  net 
increase  in  population  was  greatest,  both  the  absolute 
numbers  and  the  ratio  of  increase  were  slightly  smaller 
for  the  Negroes  than  for  the  whites.  As  the  planta¬ 
tion  areas  of  Central  Georgia  developed  between  1840 
and  1850,  however,  the  demand  for  labor  also  grew, 
and  the  percentage  of  increase  in  the  Negro  population 
exceeded  that  of  the  whites  in  this  decade.  The  state 
still  possessed  in  1850  a  white  majority  of  some  one 
hundred  and  thirty-seven  thousand,  in  a  total  popula¬ 
tion  of  about  nine  hundred  thousand.11 

10  Slavery  and  the  Internal  Slave  Trade,  by  the  Executive  Committee 
of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  (London,  1841),  pp.  12,  13,  20; 
W.  H.  Collins,  The  Domestic  Slave  Trade,  pp.  42,  119,  120;  W.  E.  B. 
Du  Bois,  The  Suppression  of  the  African  Slave  Trade  to  the  United 
States- of  America,  p.  183;  A.  A.  Taylor,  “The  Movement  of  Negroes 
to  the  Gulf  States,”  Journal  of  Negro  History,  III.  No.  4,  p.  368. 

u  The  percentage  increase  of  population,  1840-1850,  for  the  Negroes,, 
was  about  35% ;  for  the  whites,  about  28%.  Census  of  1850. 


14 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Since  cotton  could  be  best  cultivated  in  Central 
and  Coastal  Georgia,  it  was  in  these  sections  that  the 
Negro  population  became  concentrated.  They  soon 
came  to  have  a  Negro  majority  in  population,  though 
this  majority  rarely  exceeded  seventy-five  per  cent,  and 
was  often  less  than  sixty-five  per  cent,  of  the  total. 
Hence  the  concentration  of  Negro  population  was 
rarely  as  great  in  the  Georgia  Black  Belt  as  it  was  in 
those  of  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi.  Neverthe¬ 
less,  the  Negro  element  was  sufficiently  large  in  the 
Georgia  plantation  areas  to  create  a  race  problem  of 
serious  potentialities.12 

The  second  demand  stimulated  by  the  spread  of 
cotton  culture  was  that  for  improved  means  of  trans¬ 
portation.  The  chief  problem  in  this  connection  was 
how  to  ship  cotton  from  Central  Georgia  to  the  coast, 
these  two  sections  being  separated  by  the  desolate  pine 
belt.  It  was  naturally  most  convenient  at  first  to  de¬ 
pend  upon  water  transportation,  and  steamboats  were 
introduced  upon  the  Savannah  about  1816  and  upon 
the  Ocmulgee  and  Chattahoochee  about  1830.  Mer¬ 
cantile  towns  naturally  developed  at  the  fall  line  on 
these  rivers  to  handle  this  trade,  the  most  important 
being  Augusta  on  the  Savannah,  Macon  on  the  Oc¬ 
mulgee,  and  Columbus  on  the  Chattahoochee.13  Two 
of  these  towns  shipped  down  the  rivers  to  Georgia’s 
one  important  port,  Savannah,  but  some  of  their  cotton 
was  carried  on  to  Charleston.  The  latter  city  was  not 
so  well  connected  by  waterways  with  the  interior  coun- 

12  See  Map  No.  2,  p.  14.  For  the  development  of  the  Black  Belt  coun¬ 
ties;  see  R.  P.  Brooks,  “A  Local  Study  of  the  Race  Problem,”  Political 
Science  Quarterly,  XXVI.  193-200.  For  the  exact  percentage  of  slave 
population  in  the  several  Georgia  sections  in  1850,  which  varied  from 
58.2  in  the  Lower  Piedmont  to  2.3  in  the  Blue  Ridge,  see  R.  M.  Harper, 
“Development  of  Agriculture  in  Upper  Georgia,  1850-1880,”  Georgia 
Historical  Quarterly,  VI.  No.  1,  p  14.  The  free  Negro  population  was 
negligible. 

13  See  map  No.  1,  p.  10. 


MAP  NO.  2 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


15 


try  as  was  Savannah.  This  mattered  little  in  colonial 
days,  but,  when  cotton  culture  spread  to  the  Piedmont 
area  of  both  South  Carolina  and  Georgia,14  it  became 
imperative  for  Charleston  to  find  some  direct  water 
connection  with  the  new  region.  This  was  attained  by 
securing  control  of  the  line  of  steamers  running  from 
Augusta  to  Savannah  upon  the  river  of  that  name  and 
by  extending  the  line  on  from  Savannah  to  Charleston. 
In  this  way  the  Carolina  port  inaugurated  a  long  and 
portentous  rivalry  with  the  port  of  Georgia  for  the 
control  of  the  interior  trade.15 

The  establishment  of  steamers  upon  the  Ocmulgee 
and  the  Chattahoochee  was  practically  concomitant 
with  the  early  railroad  movement.  The  demand  for 
railroads  was  augmented  in  Georgia  and  the  neighbor¬ 
ing  states  by  a  growing  realization  that  the  South  was 
falling  behind  the  North  in  economic  progress.  It  be¬ 
gan  to  be  apparent  in  the  thirties  that  the  South  was 
becoming  increasingly  dependent  upon  the  other  sec¬ 
tion  in  finance,  commerce,  and  industry.  Some  south¬ 
ern  observers,  notably  the  South  Carolina  extremists, 
were  inclined  to  place  the  blame  for  this  situation  pri¬ 
marily  upon  northern  legislation  and  sought,  there¬ 
fore,  political  remedies  in  nullification  and  secession. 
The  bulk  of  well  informed  southerners  of  the  thirties 
and  forties,  however,  blamed  the  plight  of  their  section 
upon  economic  conditions  and  sought,  therefore,  eco¬ 
nomic  remedies.  The  chief  specific  remedies  proposed 
in  this  period  were,  first,  the  increase  of  both  the  do¬ 
mestic  and  foreign  trade  of  southern  ports  by  the  es¬ 
tablishment  of  railroad  connections  between  them  and 

14  See  Brooks,  Agrarian  Revolution  in  Georgia,  pp.  83-85. 

10  See  map  No.  1,  p.  10.  For  the  story  of  water  transportation  in 
Georgia,  see  U.  B.  Phillips,  A  History  of  Transportation  in  the  Eastern 
Cotton  Belt,  pp.  72,  73,  76-78,  etc.;  Mary  Lane,  “Macon,  An  Historical 
Retrospect,”  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  V.  No.  3,  p.  27. 


16 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  Mississippi  Valley;  and,  second,  the  development 
of  manufacturing  industries.  Georgia  took  the  lead  in 
pushing  each  of  these  proposed  moves  in  the  interest 
of  economic  progress.16 

Agitation  for  railroad  development  in  Georgia  be¬ 
gan  in  Athens,  Macon,  and  Savannah  in  the  early  thir¬ 
ties,  and  the  first  railroad  charters  were  issued  at  that 
time.  Plans  were  laid  for  roads  to  connect  Upper 
and  Central  Georgia  with  Savannah  and  to  develop 
in  this  connection  “direct  trade”  between  that  port  and 
Europe.  No  fewer  than  three  “direct  trade”  conven¬ 
tions  met  in  Augusta  in  1837  and  1838,  and  a  fourth  at 
Charleston  in  1839.  This  movement  to  ship  direct  to 
Europe — rather  than  via  New  York — proved  fruit¬ 
less  at  the  time,  but  was  revived  again  a  decade  later 
in  connection  with  the  increasing  sectional  antagonism 
of  that  period.17  Meanwhile,  the  related  railroad  move¬ 
ment  proved  more  productive  of  immediate  results. 
The  building  of  the  roads  was  seriously  delayed  by  the 
financial  panic  of  1837  and  the  subsequent  depression 
of  the  early  forties,  but  between  1840  and  1848  the 
“Georgia  Central”  was  built  from  Savannah  to  Macon, 
the  “Macon  and  Western”  from  Macon  to  Atlanta,  and 
the  “Georgia  Railroad”  from  Augusta  to  Atlanta. 
Meanwhile,  a  road  had  long  since  been  run  across 
South  Carolina  from  Charleston  to  Hamburg,  the 
latter  a  village  upon  the  Savannah  river  opposite 

16  The  best  brief  and  general  statement  of  southern  efforts  towards 

economic  development  is  in  St.  George  L.  Sioussat,  “Co-operation  for 
the  Development  of  the  Material  Welfare  of  the  South,”  in  The  South 
in  the  Building  of  the  Nation,  IV.  173.  For  more  detailed  expositions 
see  Edward  Ingle,  Southern  Sidelights:  A  Picture  of  Social  and  Eco¬ 
nomic  Life  in  the  South  a  Generation  Before  the  War,  chapter  vii ; 
R.  R.  Russel,  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism,  1840-1861, 
passim,  published  in  University  of  Illinois  Studies  in  the  Social  Sciences, 
XI.  Nos  1  and  2.  . 

17  Sioussat,  op.  cit.,  pp.  173-179;  Ingle,  op.  cit.,  pp.  123-126;  Russel. 
op.  cit.,  pp.  17,  18,  29,  94. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


17 


Augusta.  In  this  way  Atlanta,  in  the  Piedmont,  was 
connected  by  two  direct  rail  routes  with  the  sea,  the 
first  running  via  Macon  to  Savannah,  the  second  via 
Augusta  to  Charleston.18 

At  the  same  time  the  state  of  Georgia,  urged  on 
by  state  railroad  meetings  and  by  the  great  southern 
railroad  convention  held  at  Memphis  in  1845,  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  build  the  “Western  and  Atlantic”  north  from 
Atlanta  to  Chattanooga,  Tennessee.  This  point  was 
reached  in  1849,  and  from  here  it  was  hoped  to  make 
river  and  rail  connections  with  the  entire  Mississippi 
Valley.19  This  accomplished,  Atlanta  would  become 
the  terminus  for  all  goods  shipped  from  the  West  to 
the  southern  seaboard,  for  once  arrived  at  Atlanta, 
merchandise  could  be  shipped  thence  to  the  sea  via 
either  Macon  or  Augusta.  If  the  Erie  Canal  had  made 
a  great  port  on  the  northern  seaboard,  then  the  “Wes¬ 
tern  and  Atlantic”  could  create  a  similarly  great  port 
on  the  southern  seaboard.  Which  of  Atlanta’s  ports 
however,  was  to  become  the  great  “emporium” — 
Charleston  or  Savannah?  In  a  word,  the  rivalry  of 
these  two  ports  for  the  Piedmont  trade  was  now  ex¬ 
tended,  as  a  result  of  the  new  rail  connections  with 
Chattanooga,  into  a  potential  rivalry  for  the  trade  of 
the  entire  West. 

18  For  these  railroad  developments  see  Bonner’s  map  of  1849  and 
map  No.  1,  p.  10.  For  the  general  history  of  the  railroads  see  Phillips, 
A  History  of  Transportation  in  the  Eastern  Cotton  Belt,  passim;  for  the 
details  of  financing  and  management  see  the  annual  reports  of  the  roads, 
e.g.,  Charter,  Acts  and  Reports  of  the  President,  Engineer  and  Superin¬ 
tendent  of  the  Georgia  Railroad,  and  Banking  Company,  passim.  For 
the  complicated  economic  and  political  history  of  the  South  Carolina 
railroad  running  from  Charleston  to  Hamburg,  see  T.  D.  Jervey,  The 
Slave  Trade-.  Slavery  and  Color,  pp.  87-99. 

“  For  the  history  of  the  ‘‘Western  and  Atlantic”  see  Phillips  ‘‘An 
American  State  Owned  Railroad,”  (The  Western  and  Atlantic)  Yale 
Revieiv,  XV.  No.  3,  pp.  260-272.  For  the  connections  planned  between 
the  “Western  and  Atlantic”  and  Nashville,  Memphis,  etc.,  see  Map  No. 
1 ;  and  R.  S.  Cotterill,  “Southern  Railroads  and  Western  Trade,  1840- 
1850,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  III.  428-432. 


18 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


While  the  roads  mentioned  were  being  built,  plans 
were  also  laid  for  running  lines  across  the  state  from 
east  to  west.  It  was  proposed  to  extend  a  road 
from  Atlanta  to  West  Point  on  the  Chattahoochee,  or 
to  build  a  new  line  from  Augusta  to  Columbus  via 
Macon,  such  roads  to  be  connected  in  time  with  lines 
to  Montgomery  and  New  Orleans.  Columbus  was  par¬ 
ticularly  desirous  of  securing  connection  with  Macon 
and  Augusta,  in  the  hope  of  becoming  the  chief  trade 
center  between  Montgomery  and  Charleston.  This 
meant,  incidentally,  that  Columbus  “boosters”  looked 
forward  to  connections  with  Charleston  rather  than 
with  Savannah  in  their  own  state.  This  fact  may  con¬ 
ceivably  have  had  something  to  do  with  the  pro-Caro¬ 
lina  feeling  so  noticeable  in  Columbus  in  the  late  for¬ 
ties.20  As  a  result  of  all  its  building  activity,  Georgia 
possessed  by  1850  over  five  hundred  miles  of  railroads, 
a  mileage  which  made  it  at  least  the  fifth  state  in  the 
Union  in  railroad  development.21  The  immediate  eco¬ 
nomic  advantages  of  these  roads  were  obvious  enough. 
Later  experience  showed,  to  be  sure,  that  their  advent 
was  not  an  unmixed  blessing,22  but  they  gave  Georgia 
at  the  time  a  great  reputation  for  prosperity  and  prog¬ 
ress  and  contributed  to  the  business  optimism  of  the 
Georgia  people. 

Most  of  the  earlier  railroads  were  joint  banking 
and  transportation  enterprises,  the  banking  privileges 

20  See  the  Columbus  Times  for  January  4,  February  1,  March  28, 
May  2,  1848. 

21  There  was  a  regular  railroad  “boom”  in  the  state  between  c.  1846 
and  1850;  see  the  Savannah  Georgian,  for  May  25,  December  8,  16,  1847. 

22  The  development  of  the  roads  tended  in  the  long  run  to  increase 
the  quantity  of  cotton  raised,  to  increase  competition  in  this  industry, 
and  to  fasten  the  one-crop  system  upon  the  South,  with  all  its  attendant 
evils.  In  Georgia  the  roads  built  up  Atlanta  at  the  expense  of  the  ports. 
See  Phillips,  “Transportation  in  the  Ante-Bellum  South:  An  Economic 
Analysis,”  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,  May,  1905,  pp.  450,  451. 
For  the  immediate  effects  of  the  roads  upon  Atlanta,  see  Augusta  Chron¬ 
icle,  August  16,  1849. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


19 


having  obvious  advantages  for  corporations  involved 
in  heavy  initial  expenditures  leading  to  small  immediate 
returns.  Lack  of  capital  was  a  handicap  to  most  early 
corporate  enterprises  in  the  state,  which,  being  a  rela¬ 
tively  new  one,  was  not  possessed  of  such  banking  faci¬ 
lities  as  were  enjoyed  at  Charleston.  Banks  estab¬ 
lished  at  Savannah  and  Augusta  in  1810  having  proved 
a  success,  however,  a  State  Bank  was  founded  at  Sa¬ 
vannah  in  1828.  This  bank  served  as  a  place  of  de¬ 
posit  for  state  funds  and  issued  paper  currency.  The 
Panic  of  1837  and  the  mismanagement  and  legislative 
interference,  which  were  common  phenomena  with 
many  banks  in  the  new  states  of  this  period,  combined 
to  wreck  the  State  Bank  in  1841.  Its  liabilities  were 
met  by  a  special  bond  issue  to  the  amount  of  one  mil¬ 
lion  dollars.  This  state  debt  was  increased  in  1847 
and  1851,  when  almost  a  million  more  was  borrowed 
in  order  to  finance  the  building  of  the  state  railroad.23 

The  bond  issue  of  1841  was  made  at  a  time  of 
general  business  depression,  when  there  was  of  course 
no  surplus  in  the  state  funds.  As  a  consequence,  the 
bank’s  currency  depreciated,  and  the  state  bonds  were 
difficult  to  sell,  even  at  “ruinous  prices.”24  This  situ¬ 
ation  was  most  embarrassing  to  the  business  interests 
of  the  state  and  led  to  strenuous  efforts  by  the  Whig 
party,  which  represented  those  interests,  to  restore  the 
state’s  credit.  These  efforts,  profiting  from  the  gen¬ 
eral  return  of  prosperity  in  the  late  forties,  resulted  in 
the  payment  of  all  back  interest  and  some  of  the  prin¬ 
cipal  of  the  bonded  debt  by  1849.  In  that  year  the 
state  treasurer,  after  paying  all  expenses  and  deposit- 

23  J.  A.  Flisch,  “The  State  Finances  of  Georgia,”  The  South  in  the 
Building  of  the  Nation,  V.  409 ;  D.  R.  Dewey,  “Banking  in  the  South,” 
ibid.,  V.  467. 

24  Savannah  Georgian,  July  19,  1849. 


20 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


ing  seventy  thousand  in  the  debt  sinking  fund,  still 
had  a  surplus  of  ten  thousand  dollars  on  hand.  In  the 
same  year  the  amount  of  the  state  debt  was  less  than 
one  half  that  of  South  Carolina  and  only  about  one 
seventh  of  that  of  Alabama.25  So  encouraging  was 
the  outlook  in  the  state’s  finances  by  this  time — only 
five  years  after  a  period  of  serious  depression — that 
the  editor  of  the  nation’s  chief  commercial  journal 
remarked  that  “No  state  in  the  Union  has  stronger 
claims  upon  the  public  faith  than  Georgia.”26 

The  private  banks  of  Augusta  and  Savannah  shar¬ 
ed  in  the  return  of  financial  prosperity  in  the  late  for¬ 
ties.  With  this  prosperity  came  an  increasing  desire 
to  compete  with  the  older  and  stronger  banks  of  Charl¬ 
eston  for  the  business  of  their  own  state.  Indeed,  fi¬ 
nancial  dependence  upon  Charleston  was  fast  becom¬ 
ing  offensive  to  local  state  pride.  “It  is  absurd,”  ob¬ 
served  the  Milledgeville  Recorder ,  “that  we  now  have 
to  borrow  money  from  other  states  and  send  out  of 
Georgia  our  interest.  .  .  .  Thus  far  Georgia  has  been 
only  a  great  plantation  for  the  benefit  of  the  Charleston 
banks.”27  Thus  some  financial  rivalry  between  inter¬ 
ested  parties  in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  was  added 
to  the  trade  rivalry  already  noted.  The  Georgia  pro¬ 
test  against  financial  dependence  upon  Carolina,  it  may 
be  noted  in  passing,  was  analogous  to  the  general  south¬ 
ern  protest  against  financial  dependence  upon  the 
North,  and  it  led  to  an  analogous  dislike  for  the  section 
in  question. 

One  of  the  underlying  reasons  for  the  return  of 
financial  prosperity  by  1849  was  the  return  of  agricul¬ 
tural  prosperity  at  that  time.  Nearly  a  decade  of  de- 

25  The  American  Almanac,  for  1850,  p.  218. 

20  Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine,  XXI.  454. 

27  Quoted  in  DeBow’s  Review,  VIII.  39  (January,  1850). 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


21 


pression  in  cotton  prices  was  then  coming  to  a  happy 
end.28  Since  southern  methods  in  agriculture  were 
generally  of  a  wasteful  character,29  the  period  of  de¬ 
pression  had  been  particularly  hard  upon  those  sections 
of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  which  had  long  been 
under  cultivation.  Georgia,  however,  was  the  better 
situated  of  the  two  states  in  this  respect,  since  it  still 
possessed,  in  1850,  large  areas  of  practically  new  land 
in  Southwest  Georgia.30  A  strong  movement  for  agri¬ 
cultural  reform  was  also  inaugurated  in  Georgia  in 
the  late  forties  by  a  remarkable  agricultural  monthly, 
the  Southern  Cultivator,  which  possessed  the  largest 
circulation  of  any  periodical  in  the  state.31  Published 
at  Augusta  by  the  publishers  of  the  Chronicle,  this 
paper  carried  to  planters  throughout  Georgia  and  the 
neighboring  states  an  insistent  demand  for  more  scien¬ 
tific  farming.  As  a  result  of  this  propaganda  and  that 
of  the  agricultural  fairs,32  some  signs  of  improvement 
in  farming  methods  were  discernible  by  1850.33 

The  chief  factors  in  the  return  of  high  cotton 
prices  by  1850  seem  to  have  been  short  crops  and  an 
increasing  European  demand,  consequent  upon  good 

28  This  depression  was  variously  ascribed  to  overproduction,  and  to 
the  influence  of  the  tariff  in  limiting  British  exports  and  consequently 
British  purchasing  power.  See  Russel,  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern 
Sectionalism,  pp.  37-39. 

29  This  was  generally  recognized  at  the  time  by  progressive  southern 
editors,  see,  e.g.,  the  editorial  opinions  quoted  in  the  Augusta  Chronicle, 
April  4,  11,  1849;  Savannah  Georgian,  April  25,  1849,  etc. 

30  See  Augusta  Chronicle,  May  17,  July  6,  1849. 

31  J.  C.  G.  Kennedy,  Catalogue  of  Newspapers  and  Periodicals  in  the 
United  States,  for  1850,  in  appendix  to  J.  Livingston,  Law  Register  for 
1852,  p.  291. 

32  For  a  description  of  one  of  the  large  Stone  Mountain  fairs  see 
Augusta  Chronicle,  Sept.  15,  1849. 

33  B,oston  Courier  (Savannah  corr.),  December  27,  1850.  There  was 
a  concomitant  demand  for  agricultural  reform  in  South  Carolina ;  see 
C.  S.  Boucher,  The  Ante-Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Carolina  Toward 
Manufacturing  and  Agriculture,  pp.  264-266,  (published  in  Washington 
University  Studies,  III.  Pt.  II,  Humanistic  Series,  No.  2). 


22 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


harvests  in  England  and  the  return  to  “normalcy” 
after  the  political  disturbances  of  1848.34  As  a  result 
of  all  these  factors,  the  price  rose  rapidly  late  in  1849, 
the  average  price  of  “middling  upland”  per  pound  at 
New  York  City  going  from  7.55  cents  in  1849  to  12.34 
in  1850.35  By  October  23,  1850,  “middling  fair”  was 
selling  at  Savannah  for  13.5,  which,  according  to  C. 
F.  M’Cays’  estimate,  represented  an  advance  of  no 
less  than  eighty-five  per  cent,  over  the  average  price 
for  the  period  of  the  five  preceding  years.  The  average 
price  per  pound  of  exported  cotton  of  all  grades  rose 
from  6.4  in  1849  to  11.3  in  1850,  and  to  12.11  in  1851.36 

The  cumulative  result  of  increasing  cotton  prices, 
of  attempts  at  agricultural  improvement,  and  of  the 
prospect  of  still  unexhausted  soils  in  Southwest  Geor¬ 
gia,  was  to  render  the  Georgia  planters  a  fairly  pros¬ 
perous  and  optimistic  group  by  1850.  In  addition  to 
this,  and  what  is  perhaps  of  greater  psychological  im¬ 
port  here,  the  planters  expected  a  continuation  of  good 
times  with  increasing  prosperity  in  the  near  future. 

There  was  one  other  cause  for  optimism  among  the 
propertied  classes  of  Georgia  in  the  late  forties ;  name¬ 
ly,  the  belief  that  manufacturing  enterprises,  then 
growing  rapidly  in  the  state,  would  soon  become  a 
source  of  great  wealth  to  its  citizens.  The  depression 
in  cotton  prices  during  the  forties  did  more  to  foster 

34  Russel,  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism,  pp.  33-35. 

35  F.  J.  Guetter  and  A.  E.  McKinley,  Statistical  Tables  Relating  to  the 
Economic  Growth  of  the  United  States,  Enlarged  Edition,  p.  44  (Phila¬ 
delphia,  1924)  ;  see  also,  Russel,  op.  cit..  p.  35;  U.  B.  Phillips.  American 
Negro  Slavery,  p.  370;  R.  B.  Handy,  “History  and  General  Statistics  of 
Cotton,”  The  Cotton  Plant,  p.  42,  published  as  United  States  Department 
of  Agriculture  Bulletin  No.  33.  (Washington,  1896),  also  in  House 
Documents,  54  Congress,  2  Session,  No.  267. 

36  Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine,  XXIII.  598  (December,  1850)  gives 
M’Cay’s  estimates.  For  average  prices  of  exported  cotton  see  report 
of  the  U.  S.  Treasury  Department  for  1855,  Senate  Documents,  34  Con¬ 
gress,  Sessions  1  and  2,  V.  No.  32,  p.  116. 


MAP  NO.  3 


Based  upon  the  values  of  farm  lands,  farm  equipment,  farm  stock,  and  slaves;  estimating 
the  average  value  of  slaves  at  $500.  Urban  property  values  are  not  included. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


2  3 


industrial  development  in  the  eastern  cotton  belt  than 
had  the  earlier  protective  tariffs.  As  returns  on  cotton 
investments  fell,  while  dividends  on  industrial  invest¬ 
ments  continued  high  in  the  North,  it  seemed  reason¬ 
able  that  some  southern  capital  should  be  diverted  into 
the  more  promising  industrial  field.  A  systematic 
propaganda  with  this  end  in  view  was  consequently 
carried  on  in  both  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  during 
the  forties  by  progressive  merchants  and  other  men  of 
property.  While  the  most  distinguished  individual 
leader  of  the  industrial  movement  was  William  Gregg, 
of  South  Carolina,  there  is  some  reason  to  believe  that 
its  advent  in  Georgia  antedates  the  time  of  Gregg’s 
activity  and  that  it  would  have  developed  in  Georgia 
along  much  the  same  lines  had  Gregg’s  influence  never 
been  exerted.37 

The  pro-industrial  propaganda  of  the  forties  em¬ 
phasized  the  promise  of  high  dividends,  the  advan¬ 
tages  of  location  adjacent  to  the  source  of  raw  mater¬ 
ials,  and  the  abundant  supply  of  potential  power  and 
cheap  labor38  in  the  South.  Did  not  all  natural  advan¬ 
tages  in  the  field  of  cotton  textile  manufacturing,  in¬ 
deed,  lie  with  the  South  rather  than  with  the  North?39 

31  Gregg’s  first  essay  appeared  in  1844  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
called  attention  to  the  “rapid  progress”  already  being  made  in  Georgia 
manufacturing  at  that  time;  Russel,  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern 
Sectionalism,  p.  41.  Gregg  was  himself  the  nephew  of  a  Georgia  fac¬ 
tory  owner  who  had  built  one  of  the  early  mills  in  that  state;  Ingle. 
Southern  Sidelights,  p.  86. 

38  While  there  was  always  uncertainty  as  to  the  availability  of  slave 
labor  for  industries,  the  availability  of  “poor  white”  labor  was  well 
recognized  in  Georgia  in  1850.  See  the  Augusta  Chronicle,  April  27, 
May  27,  June  1,  1849;  cf.  Broadus  Mitchell,  The  Rise  of  Cotton  Mills 
in  the  South,  p.  25,  published  in  Johns  Hopkins  University  Studies  in 
History  and  Political  Science,  XXXIX.  No.  2.  Cf.,  also,  Boucher, 
Ante-Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Carolina  Towards  Manufacturing  and 
Agriculture,  p.  249. 

39  The  truth  of  this  view,  so  well  and  so  persistently  expressed  in 
the  forties,  is  being  demonstrated  today,  nearly  a  century  later,  in  the 
steady  transfer  of  cotton  textile  manufacturing  from  New  England  to 
the  Piedmont  of  the  Carolinas  and  Georgia. 


24 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Only  the  exclusive  devotion  of  the  South  to  cotton  cul¬ 
ture  was  preventing  that  section  from  achieving  the 
industrial  supremacy  to  which  nature  had  predestined 
it.40 

Such  propaganda,  however,  had  to  labor  against 
strong  and  persistent  opposition.  There  was  the  tra¬ 
ditional  fear  that  manufacturing  would  lead  to  pro¬ 
tective  tariffs,  the  pet  abomination  of  the  South,  and 
a  general  suspicion  that  it  would  in  various  ways  up¬ 
set  the  whole  dominant  plantation  and  slave-labor  sys¬ 
tem.41  There  was,  finally,  the  opposition  to  any  change, 
which  resulted  from  general  social  inertia,  an  inertia 
perhaps  the  stronger  for  the  fact  that  many  of  the 
native  whites  of  the  state  were  in  this  period  ignorant 
and  illiterate.42 

Apparently  undaunted  by  the  many  difficulties  to 
be  met,  the  proponents  of  industrialism  proclaimed 
their  views  throughout  Georgia  persistently  and  with¬ 
out  fear.43  The  Whig  papers  of  the  larger  towns, 
which,  as  will  be  noted  later,  usually  possessed  a  larger 
circulation  than  did  their  Democratic  rivals,  were  the 

40  For  the  appeal  for  manufacturing  in  Georgia  see,  e.g.,  the  files  of 
the  Augusta  Chronicle  and  the  Savannah  Republican  for  1847-1850. 

41  For  the  traditional  opposition  to  industrialism  and  tariffs,  as  well 
as  the  fear  that  the  whole  plantation  and  slave-labor  system  would  be 
upset  by  the  new  order,  see  A.  S.  Jones,  Speed  the  Plow:  An  Essay  on 
the  Tariff,  By  a  Georgia  Planter,  pp.  16,  17.  For  tariff  arguments  pro 
and  con  in  Georgia,  consult  the  debate  between  the  Augusta  Constitu¬ 
tionalist  and  the  Augusta  Chronicle,  as  reported  in  the  latter  for  May 
16  and  18,  1849. 

43  About  20%  of  the  poorer  whites  were  entirely  illiterate,  there  being 
no  effective  public  school  system  in  the  state  in  1850.  See  Map  No.  4,  p. 
24,  for  the  distribution  of  white  illiteracy,  which  closely  paralleled  the 
distribution  of  wealth,  as  shown  in  Map  No.  3,  p.  22.  For  a  general 
description  of  educational  conditions  in  the  state  about  1850,  see  C.  E. 
Jones,  Education  in  Georgia,  pp.  24-31,  published  as  Cnited  States  Bu¬ 
reau  of  Education  Monographs  No.  5  (1889).  Cf.  W.  H.  Kirkpatrick, 
“The  Beginning  of  the  Public  School  System  in  Georgia,"  Georgia  His¬ 
torical  Quarterly,  V.  No.  3,  p.  8.  See  also  E.  M.  Coulter, _  “A  Georgia 
Educational  Movement  During  the  Eighteen  Hundred  Fifties.”  ibid., 
IX,  No.  1,  1-33. 

43  Cf.  Channing,  History  of  the  United  States,  V.  76. 


MAP  NO.  4 


Per  cert  lap o  of  Adut t  1/1/ hife 

////Terafes  m  re/of /on  To  the 
Toted  Cohite. population: IB50. 

CThe  ra.fi  o  To  the.  White 
A  cl  u  Tt  Poput  a  Ti on 
would  he.  much  hip  he.  r) 

/5  %  a  not  o  ver _  □ 

8  to/S  % _ |=) 

3%  to  8% _ 

Under  3  %- 


D/str  /  (rut/ o  n  of  {//iteracy  /n 

GfORG'M  in  IS 50. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


25 


chief  media  employed  in  urging  the  new  point  of  view. 
So  persistent  was  the  propaganda  that  it  began  to  show 
definite  and,  in  some  ways,  remarkable  results  during 
the  fifth  decade.  In  1840  Georgia  had  possessed  but 
a  few  insignificant  cotton  mills  with  a  product  of 
less  value  than  that  turned  out  in  a  number  of  the  other 
southern  states.  During  the  next  ten  years,  the  rela¬ 
tive  increase  in  the  value  of  cotton  goods  produced  in 
Georgia  was  greater  than  that  in  any  other  state  of 
the  Union  which  had  done  an  appreciable  amount  of 
manufacturing  in  1840,  and  the  value  increase  in  abso¬ 
lute  figures  was  greater  in  Georgia  than  in  any  of  the 
states  save  Massachusetts  and  New  Hampshire.  Only 
two  southern  states  remained  in  any  way  her  serious 
competitors  in  1850,  Maryland  and  Virginia,  and  both 
of  these  were  surpassed  by  Georgia  in  that  year  in  the 
value  of  cotton  textile  products.  Some  seven  northern 
states  continued,  to  be  sure,  to  greatly  outrank  the 
“Keystone”  of  the  South  in  this  respect,  but  the  Geor¬ 
gia  cotton  products  came  very  close  in  value  to  those 
of  Maine  and  surpassed  those  of  New  Jersey.  Woolen 
manufactures  remained  on  a  very  small  scale  in  the 
state,  but  made  a  relatively  great  advance  in  value 
from  three  hundred  dollars  in  1840  to  over  eighty- 
eight  thousand  dollars  in  1850.44 

44  These  statements  are  based  upon  official  returns  made  to  the 
Treasury  Department  in  1855,  published  in  House  Executive  Docu¬ 
ments,  34  Congress,  Session  1,  IV.  Nos.  17  and  18,  pp.  93-96.  See  also 
T.  P.  Kettrell,  Southern  Wealth  and  Northern  Profits,  p.  54.  Some  of 
the  comparative  figures  on  cotton  manufactures  are  as  follows : 


Value  Produced 

State  1840  1850 

Massachusetts  .  $16,553,423  $19,712,461 

New  York  .  3,640,237  3,591,989 

Maine  .  970,397  2,596,356 

Georgia .  304,342  2,135,044 

Maryland  .  1,150,580  2,120,504 

New  Jersey  .  2,086,104  1,109,524 

South  Carolina .  359,000  748,338 

Alabama  .  17,547  382,260 


26 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


There  were,  in  1850,  some  forty  cotton  factories 
in  Georgia,  which  ran  more  than  sixty  thousand  spin¬ 
dles  and  used  more  than  forty-five  thousand  bales  of 
raw  cotton  per  year.  The  number  of  textile  employees, 
so  far  as  can  be  estimated,  was  at  least  twenty-three 
hundred.  There  were  mills  in  nearly  all  the  chief 
Piedmont  towns,  but  the  main  centers  of  manufactur¬ 
ing  were  Columbus  and  Augusta,  whose  situation  at 
the  fall  line  on  navigable  rivers  gave  them  peculiar 
advantages.  Most  of  the  mills  were  small,  but  one  in 
Columbus  was  housed  in  a  six-story  building  and  em¬ 
ployed  over  two  hundred  people,  while  another  in  Au¬ 
gusta  had  four  hundred  employees.45 

It  is  true  that  some  depression  in  Georgia  textile 
manufacturing  ensued  in  the  years  immediately  fol¬ 
lowing  1850,  though  Georgia  did  not  suffer  so  much 
in  this  respect  as  did  some  other  states.46  The  very  rise 
in  cotton  prices  which  so  benefited  the  planters  neces¬ 
sarily  tended  to  embarrass  the  manufacturers.  This, 
however,  does  not  alter  the  fact  to  be  remembered  in 
connection  with  the  political  crisis  of  1850;  namely, 
that  a  small  but  influential  group  of  Georgians  believed 
at  the  time  that  great  industrial  prosperity  lay  just 
ahead  for  their  state.  “So  we  go,”  observed  the  Col¬ 
umbus  Times  at  the  end  of  that  year  of  fateful  politi¬ 
cal  development,  “Columbus  will  be  a  Georgia  Lowell 

48  For  an  enthusiastic  contemporary  account  of  the  relatively  great 
progress  of  manufacturing  in  Georgia,  see  the  Scientific  American,  as 
quoted  in  the  Washington  Republic,  June  7,  1850;  see  also  Richmond 
(Va.)  Whig,  April  30,  1850.  There  are,  of  course,  many  accounts  in 
contemporary  Georgia  papers,  e.g.,  Augusta  Chronicle,  May  2,  1849.  For 
numbers  of  operatives  and  other  statistics  see  the  Census  of  1850;  Ket- 
trell,  op.  cit.,  pp.  54,  55 ;  and  A.  Sherwood,  Gazetteer  of  Georgia  (4th 
Edition,  1860)  p.  193.  For  the  general  history  of  early  manufacturing 
in  Georgia,  see  Ibid.,  p.  172,  ff. ;  V.  S.  Clark,  History  of  Manufactures, 
pp.  556,  557. 

Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine,  for  May,  1852,  gives  comparative 
capital  invested  in  Georgia  manufactures  in  1850  and  1852. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


27 


before  long,  and  some  of  these  days  will  beat  her. 
Lowell  never  had,  nor  never  can  have,  the  advantages 
with  which  Columbus  is  endowed  by  nature  for  manu¬ 
facturing  purposes.”47  Thus  it  was  that  industrial 
enthusiasm  was  added  to  agricultural  enthusiasm  as  a 
source  of  business  optimism  in  Georgia.48 

If  the  several  economic  interests  in  Georgia  were 
prospering,  or  at  least  expected  to  prosper,  as  the  end 
of  the  decade  approached,  how  did  the  state’s  business 
classes  view  the  economic  situation  as  a  whole?  As 
one  would  expect,  there  was  the  same  economic  opti¬ 
mism  in  general  as  was  associated  with  the  several 
occupations  in  particular.  All  things  seemed  to  work 
together  for  the  good  of  those  who  loved  Georgia,  and 
the  end  of  the  decade  promised  to  be  as  bright  as  the 
beginning  had  been  gloomy.  Cotton  planting  was,  to 
be  sure,  still  troublesome,  and  lands  still  persisted  in 
wearing  out,  but  improvements  in  prices  and  lands 
were  in  sight.  Railroad  building  was  booming,  and 
manufactures,  though  still  on  a  small  scale,  had  in¬ 
creased  at  an  unprecedented  rate  through  the  decade. 
Manufactures  seemed  to  supplement  planting  and 
promised  employment  for  the  hitherto  decadent 
classes  of  the  population.  Banking  facilities  and  the 
state’s  credit  were  improving,  and  minor  occupations 
were  feeling  the  touch  of  general  prosperity.  Commer¬ 
cial  and  manufacturing  towns  were  growing.  Was  not 
Georgia  truly  the  Empire  State  of  the  South  ? 

So,  at  least,  felt  her  optimistic  capitalist  class. 
“Georgia,”  wrote  an  enthusiast  in  1849,  “makes  more 

"  In  Philadelphia  North  American,  December  29,  1850.  This  “booster” 
prediction  may  yet  be  realised. 

48  There  has  been  a  tendency  to  overlook  the  significance  of  the  early 
industrial  revolution  in  Georgia,  apparently  because,  in  terms  of  absolute 
figures,  the  output  of  the  South  as  a  whole  was  very  small  in  com¬ 
parison  with  that  of  New  England;  see  Kettrell,  op.  cit.,  passim. 


28 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


cotton  and  corn — has  more  railroads — more  manufac¬ 
tures — more  shipping  (save  perhaps  for  New  Or¬ 
leans) — pays  less  taxes — has  more  schools — has  more 
diversified  mineral  wealth — is  nearly  ready  to  furnish 
her  own  citizens  and  those  of  sister  states  with  flour  to 
eat,  clothes  to  wear,  iron  to  work — she  has  a  smaller 
public  debt — a  finer  climate  or  climates  (as  she  has 
them  by  assortment) —  .  .  .  than  most  (may  we 
not  say,  than  any)  of  her  sister  states  of  the  South.”49 
True,  she  did  not  seem  so  prosperous  when  compared 
with  the  northern  states.  Some  Georgians  claimed, 
however,  that  the  apparent  economic  superiority 
of  even  northern  states  was  illusory.  Perhaps 
the  most  dramatic  expression  of  this  claim  was 
given  by  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  who  engaged  an 
Ohio  representative  in  debate  in  Congress  in  1854 
in  an  efifort  to  prove  that  his  state  was  more  wealthy 
and  prosperous  than  was  Ohio.50 

Georgia’s  economic  leadership  in  the  South  was 
often  conceded  in  her  sister  states.  “Georgia  will 
soon  be  a  model  state,”  remarked  the  Knoxville  (Ten¬ 
nessee)  Register .51  Georgia  has  far  outstripped  any 
Southern  state  in  railroad  improvements,”  observed 
the  Mobile  (Alabama)  Register.52  The  Mobile  Ad¬ 
vertiser  agreed  with  this  view.53  The  Raleigh  (North 
Carolina)  Star,  in  joining  in  this  praise,  recalled  the 
state’s  earlier  economic  depression.  “Ten  years  before 
she  was  as  low  in  natural  character  and  individual 
enterprise  as  ever  was  old  Rip  Van  Winkle.  Now, 

49  De  Bow’s  Review,  VII.  177. 

M  More  of  Georgia  and  Ohio,  pp.  1-10.  For  the  reply  of  the  Ohio 
representative,  L.  D.  Campbell,  with  its  critical  examination  of  Stephen’s 
statistics,  see  Campbell’s  pamphlet,  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  pp.  4,  5. 

61  In  Augusta  Chronicle,  May  16,  1850. 

“In  Washington  Republic,  January  11,  1850. 

63  Mobile  (Ala.)  Advertiser,  November  28,  1850. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


29 


because  of  her  press,  factories  and  railroads,  she  is 
indisputably  in  advance  of  any  other  southern  state  in 
enterprise  and  success.”04  A  South  Carolinian,  writ¬ 
ing  from  Charleston  in  1849,  remarked  that  “everyone 
who  has  traveled  through  Georgia  this  year  seems  to 
be  struck  by  the  energy,  enterprise  and  go-ahead-itive- 
ness  of  her  people.”55  ; 

Such  opinions  sometimes  reached  the  North. 
James  M.  Crane,  of  Virginia,  for  instance,  in  speaking 
before  the  American  Institute  of  New  York,  claimed 
that  Georgia  was  “the  New  England  of  the  South, 
with  $55,000,000  invested  in  railroads  and  manu¬ 
facturing.”  Immigrants  were  coming  in,  and  it  was 
advancing  more  rapidly  than  any  of  the  southern 
states.56  As  a  result  of  such  addresses  and  of  the  trips 
of  northern  business  men  and  travelers  to  Georgia,  the 
northern  papers  began  to  comment  on  Georgia’s 
leadership.57  Olmsted,  “the  Yankee  Peripatetic,” 
declared :  “It  is  obvious  to  the  traveler  and  notorious 
in  the  stock-market  that  there  is  more  life,  enterprise, 
skill  and  industry  in  Georgia  than  in  any  other  of  the 
Southern  Commonwealths.  It  is  the  Yankee-Land  of 
the  South.”58 

So  much  for  opinion  within  Georgia  and  without 
upon  the  subject  of  her  prosperity.  This  brings  us 
naturally  to  a  consideration  of  the  one  development 
which  seemed  between  1847  and  1852  to  threaten  most 
seriously  the  whole  scheme  of  that  prosperity.  Every 

64  In  Augusta  Chronicle,  June  13,  1849. 

55  Ibid.,  September  20,  1849;  see  also  Charleston  Courier,  November 
18,  1850. 

58  De  Bow’s  Reviezv,  VII.  177.  (August,  1849). 

57  See,  e.g.,  the  Boston  Courier,  January  23,  1850;  the  Washington 
Republic,  January  11,  1850;  the  Philadelphia  North  American,  December 
25,  1849. 

68  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  530. 


30 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


factor  but  one  in  the  dominant  cotton  planting  system 
seemed  to  be  pleasing — land,  prices,  agricultural  im¬ 
provements — all  these  afforded  a  promising  outlook. 
Yet  all  the  while  that  these  had  been  improving  in  the 
late  forties,  the  other  vital  factor,  that  of  labor,  had 
been  threatened  by  a  suddenly  increasing  menace — the 
development  of  the  antislavery  movement  in  the  North 
and  the  political  crisis  which  this  precipitated  in  the 
years  mentioned.  The  antislavery  attack  upon  the 
Negro  slave  system  loomed  as  a  growing  cloud  upon 
the  political  horizon  and  threatened,  as  the  years 
passed,  to  obscure  the  dawning  light  of  economic  optim¬ 
ism  and  prosperity.  The  antislavery  attack  raised 
many  delicate  and  difficult  problems  concerning  Negro 
slavery,  upon  which  Georgians  and  other  southerners 
were  undecided  or,  when  decided,  often  divided  in 
opinion.  As  the  political  crisis  of  1850  was  most  di¬ 
rectly  concerned  with  these  problems  involved  in 
slavery,  and  as  the  attitude  of  the  Georgia  people 
towards  that  crisis  depended  in  some  measure  upon 
their  attitude  towards  slavery,  it  is  well  here  to  review 
the  nature  of  these  difficulties.  Much  needs  only  to  be 
stated  to  be  recalled ;  a  few  facts  require  new  emphasis 
or  illustration. 

Practically  all  native  Georgians  regarded  the 
northern  antislavery  movement  as  an  unprovoked  at¬ 
tack  upon  southern  institutions.  It  seemed  to  them 
that  the  movement  had  become  constantly  more  aggres¬ 
sive  during  the  fourth  and  fifth  decades  of  the  century, 
first  in  the  effort  to  prevent  the  extension  of  slavery; 
secondly,  to  undermine  it  where  it  already  existed.  In 
opposing  this  attack,  the  proslavery  men  had  acted 
upon  the  defensive  and  had  often  been  conciliatory, 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


31 


but  all  to  no  avail.59  The  conduct  of  the  antislavery 
Yankees  seemed  incomprehensible  to  many.  While 
some  granted  that  the  abolitionists  were  well-inten¬ 
tioned  but  deluded  men,  most  southerners  saw  in  them 
merely  an  incomprehensible  fanaticism. 

This  view  was,  of  course,  exactly  the  opposite  of 
that  held  in  the  North  by  the  antislavery  men ;  namely, 
that  the  proslavery  southerners  had  been  a  united  and 
aggressive  group,  attempting  to  spread  their  institu¬ 
tions  across  the  country  and  to  control  the  Federal 
government  in  order  to  guarantee  the  success  of  this 
and  other  proslavery  movements.60 

Such  views  were  unknown  or  ignored  by  the  aver¬ 
age  Georgian.  His  interest  was  centered,  if  he  were 
an  intelligent  citizen,  upon  the  refutation  of  the  aboli¬ 
tionists’  attack  upon  slavery.  This  attack,  it  will  be 
recalled,  had  three  phases,  slavery  being  condemned 
upon  theological,  moral,  and  economic  grounds.  The 
degree  of  time  and  effort  expended  upon  these 
phases  usually  seems  to  have  been  in  inverse  propor¬ 
tion  to  their  respective  importance. 

It  was  argued  at  some  length  that  God’s  “Higher 
Law”  forbade  the  holding  of  human  beings  as  prop¬ 
erty.  In  reply,  the  southerners  labored  at  equal  or 
greater  length,  and  with  equal  or  greater  conclusive¬ 
ness,  to  show  that  scriptural  authority  approved  the 
institution.  This  discussion,  while  of  considerable  in- 

59  Letters  from  Georgia  to  Massachusetts,  pp.  1,  15-20.  This  pamph¬ 
let,  the  work  of  A.  B.  Longstreet,  while  not  entirely  fair  to  Massachu¬ 
setts,  is  very  suggestive  for  southern  thought  on  slavery  in  1850.  It  was 
largely  ignored  at  the  North.  See  Wade,  A.  B.  Longstreet,  pp.  286-287. 

60  For  the  persistence  of  this  view  of  a  united  and  aggressive 
Slavocracy,  in  modern  scholarly  work,  see  the  first  volume  of  Rhodes’ 
History  of  the  United  States.  For  criticism  of  the  same,  see  Boucher, 
'“In  Re  That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical 
- Review ,  VIII.  1  and  2,  pp.  13-16. 


32 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


terest  to  a  more  or  less  theological  age,  did  not  often 
touch  upon  practical  points  at  issue. 

Many  of  the  moral  charges  made  against  slavery 
met  with  flat  denial  in  the  South.  There  was,  it  was 
held,  no  such  breeding  of  slaves  for  sale  as  the  aboli¬ 
tionists  claimed  was  the  custom.  Georgians  admitted, 
to  be  sure,  that  slaves  were  “reared”  in  the  border 
states  for  sale  in  the  lower  South,61  but  this  was  not 
necessarily  the  same  thing  as  “breeding.”  It  was  gen¬ 
erally  admitted  by  abolitionists,  moreover,  that  Georgia 
itself  was  not  even  a  “slave  rearing”  state.62  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  abolitionist  called  attention  to  the 
evils  of  miscegenation,  the  Georgians  admitted  the 
charge,  but  retorted  that  the  same  evils  existed  to  an 
even  greater  extent  at  the  North.  Was  not  the  ratio 
of  mulattoes  to  pure  Negroes  twenty  times  as  great  in 
Ohio  as  in  Georgia — to  say  nothing  of  prostitution?63 
In  like  manner,  it  was  customary,  when  the  antislavery 
critics  decried  the  overworking  of  the  slave,  to  call  at¬ 
tention  to  the  even  more  brutal  treatment  accorded  the 
“free”  factory  workers  of  Old  and  New  England.64 
So  the  argument  proceeded,  controversial  and  unscien¬ 
tific  declarations  being  answered  by  pronouncements 
of  a  like  nature. 

It  is  interesting  to  recall  that  some  southern 
writers  attempted  to  stay  the  debate  by  appealing  to 

81  For  description  of  a  legislative  debate  based  upon  this  point  see 
Savannah  Georgian,  November  13,  1849;  Augusta  Chronicle,  September 
12,  1849.  Cf.  The  Plantation  I.  No.  2,  p.  110. 

82  Slavery  and  International  Slave  Trade,  by  the  Executive  Committee 
of  the  American  Anti-Slavery  Society,  (1841)  pp.  12,  13.  20.  For  an 
exception  to  this  rule  see  the  Boston  Liberator,  August  9,  1850. 

M  The  Plantation,  II.  No.  2,  p.  384. 

01  Harper,  The  Pro-Slavery  Argument,  passim.  For  northern  replies 
to  this  argument,  see,  e.g..  Inquiry  into  the  Condition  and  Prospects  of 
the  African  Race  in  the  United  States,  By  an  American,  (Philadelphia. 
1839)  passim;  Paine,  Six  Years  in  a  Georgia  Prison,  p.  16;  Ohio  State 
Journal,  (Columbus),  October  18,  1850,  etc.  Cf.  Dodd,  The  Cotton  King¬ 
dom,  p.  61. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


33 


the  common  business  interests  of  northern  manufac¬ 
turers  and  southern  planters.  Not  the  least  interesting- 
of  such  appeals  was  that  made  by  a  few  sociologists, 
who  explained  to  the  northerners  that  the  abolitionists 
hated  capitalists  as  well  as  planters  and  would  attack 
the  holdings  of  the  one  as  well  as  of  the  other.  Aboli¬ 
tionists  or  Socialists — they  were  all  the  same,  declared 
Hundley.65 

The  economic  indictment  of  slavery  was,  other 
things  being  equal,  the  one  best  calculated  to  command 
the  planter’s  serious  consideration.  This  indictment, 
drawn  up  originally  by  such  southern  writers  as  Dr. 
Thomas  Cooper,  was  later  taken  over  by  such 
critics  as  Olmsted  and  Helper.  The  analysis  of  slav¬ 
ery  as  an  expensive  form  of  labor  is  a  familiar  one, 
and  much  of  the  economic  backwardness  of  the  South 
was  explained  by  northern  critics  in  terms  of  this 
analysis.66  While  some  southerners  replied  to  this  by 
denying  the  assumption  that  the  South  was  backward 
— and  it  is  of  interest  here  that  Alexander  H.  Stephens 
cited  the  prosperity  of  Georgia  to  support  such  a  denial 
— most  southerners  admitted  the  backwardness,  but 
attributed  it  to  factors  other  than  slavery.  The  “Cal¬ 
houn  Democrats”  in  Georgia  blamed  it  upon  northern 
legislation,  while  the  Whigs  usually  ascribed  it  to  the 
plantation  system  and  to  the  lack  of  manufacturing 
enterprise. 

Nevertheless,  there  were  some  signs  of  wavering 
in  the  southern  defence  of  the  economic  aspects  of  their 
institution.  At  almost  the  very  time  that  Fitzhugh 
and  others  were  urging  the  slave  system  as  the  best 

05  D.  R.  Hundley,  Social  Relations  in  Our  Southern  States,  pp.  279- 
281.  See  also  Fitzhugh,  Cannibals  All,  pp.  54,  144,  356,  357. 

60  See  Boston  Post  and  Boston  Atlas  for  April  and  May,  1849, 
passim.  Cf.  Phillips,  American  Negro  Slavery,  pp.  350,  394,  397,  399. 


34 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


system  of  labor  per  se,  influential  papers  in  Georgia 
seemed  just  a  little  uncertain  about  the  institution. 
Though  still  courageous,  they  were  apparently  whis¬ 
tling  in  the  dark.  When  the  Boston  Atlas  and  Boston 
Post  proceeded  in  1849  to  condemn  slavery  upon  eco¬ 
nomic  grounds,  the  Savannah  Georgian  and  Augusta 
Chronicle  essayed  to  reply.  The  Georgian  rejoiced 
with  apparent  relief  that  the  progress  of  manufactures 
would  now  “demonstrate  that  slavery  does  not  impede 
progress,”  the  implication  being  clearly  that  a  demon¬ 
stration  had  hitherto  been  wanting.  It  admitted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  slave  labor  was  “not  as  cheap  as  what  is 
styled  ‘free  labor’  at  the  North.”67  The  Chronicle  re¬ 
buked  this  admission,  declaring  that  the  Georgian 
confused  the  system  of  slave  labor  with  the  planting 
system  of  agriculture.  “If  all  our  slaves  were  replaced 
by  European  immigrants,”  it  declared,  “and  the  same 
wasteful  methods  of  planting  were  employed,  condi¬ 
tions  would  be  just  as  bad.”68 

A  week  later,  however,  further  thunders  from  Bos¬ 
ton  led  the  Chronicle  to  make  a  statement  as  remarkable 
for  its  insight  as  for  its  frankness.  “Slaveholders  must 
demonstrate  in  a  large  way,”  it  admitted,  “and  by  visi¬ 
ble  results,  that  slave  labor  in  Georgia  is  as  profitable 
to  you  and  as  useful  to  the  world,  as  free  labor  is  at 
the  North  or  can  be  at  the  South, — that  it  is  not  inimi¬ 
cal  to  common  schools,  the  improvement  of  the  soil  and 
the  progress  of  manufactures.  .  .  .  Our  sectional 

67  Savannah  Georgian,  May  11,  1849. 

68  Augusta  Chronicle,  May  12,  1849.  This  distinction  between  slave- 
labor  and  the  plantation  system  was  a  significant  one,  since  these  two, 
and  a  third  factor,  the  race  question,  were  often  confused  at  the  time, 
and  have  been  since.  Indeed,  the  Chronicle  itself  seems,  in  the  statement 
quoted,  to  have  overlooked  the  race  factor.  For  a  modern  discussion  of 
the  plantation  system,  as  distinct  from  the  slave-labor  system,  see 
Phillips,  “The  Decadence  of  the  Plantation  System,”  Annals  of  the 
American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social  Science,  XXXV.  37-41. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


35 


movements  are  taken  for  weakness  in  this  regard. 
The  whole  matter  will  turn  in  the  end  on  the  pivot  of 
dollars  and  cents.  We  can  only  prove  our  view  by 
attaining  prosperity.”69 

It  may  be  of  some  speculative  interest  here  to  raise 
the  question  as  to  what  the  attitude  of  such  a  paper 
would  have  been  had  the  test  it  suggested  failed  in 
later  years  to  bring  a  satisfactory  result.  In  terms  of 
its  own  analysis,  this  would  have  condemned  slavery 
upon  economic  grounds.  It  is  logical  to  suppose  that 
the  editors  would  then  have  favored  some  gradual 
modifications  of  the  institution,  in  the  economic  inter¬ 
est  of  the  planter  class  their  paper  represented.  Wheth¬ 
er  so  logical  a  course  would  have  been  followed,  how¬ 
ever,  in  view  of  all  the  conflicting  circumstances  in- 
r  volved,  is  difficult  to  say. 

There  had  always  been  a  divergence  of  opinion 
among  Georgians  as  to  the  chances  of  eventual  emanci¬ 
pation.  Discussion  of  this  question  had  been  renewed 
in  the  middle  thirties  by  the  abolitionist  propaganda 
of  the  time.  At  this  time  those  who  maintained  the 
older  philosophic  objections  to  slavery  were  already 
becoming  uncertain  as  to  whether  emancipation  could 
ever  be  accomplished.70  Some  men  of  idealistic  temper 
like  Alexander  H.  Stephens  maintained  through  the 
forties  that  slavery  was  a  moral  evil,  but  gradually  lost 
faith  that  it  would  ever  be  abandoned.71  Many  Geor¬ 
gians,  in  conformity  with  the  spirit  of  the  age,  had 
come  by  1850  to  hold  that  slavery  was  a  good  per  se, 

09  Augusta  Chronicle,  May  17,  1849.  Italics  my  own. 

70 Remarks  upon.  Slavery,  Occasioned  by  Attempts  to  Circulate 
Improper  Publications  in  the  Southern  States,  by  a  Citisen  of  Georgia, 
(Augusta,  Ga.,  1835),  p.  30. 

71  Savannah  Georgian,  May  5,  1849. 


36 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


which  “would  be  of  perpetual  duration  and  must  be 
preserved  at  all  hazards.”72 

Nevertheless,  there  were  observers  both  North  and 
South  who  believed  that  the  test  proposed  by  the 
Chronicle  would  ultimately  lead  the  South  to  emanci¬ 
pation.  One  northerner  suggested  that  progress  in 
machine  inventions  would  make  slave  labor  still  more 
unprofitable,  when  slavery  would  “die  amid  the  ho¬ 
sannas  of  both  pro  and  anti-slavery  men  alike.”73 
Another  held  that  “throughout  the  world  abolition  has 
come  naturally  when  increases  in  population  and  wealth 
increased  the  value  of  land  and  labor,  thus  making  the 
price  of  slave  labor  high  and  unprofitable.  The  slave 
in  the  United  States  is  now  passing  towards  freedom 
by  the  natural  road  and  any  interference  .  .  .  will 
hinder  this  process.”74 

In  the  South  it  was  believed  by  at  least  a  few  that 
the  economic  test  had  already  convinced  many  that 
slavery  should  be  abolished.  Heydenfeldt,  an  Ala¬ 
bama  citizen,  stated  in  a  long  analysis  of  the  slave  prob¬ 
lem  addressed  to  the  governor  that  “the  South  has  the 
germ  of  a  special  and  unknown  anti-slavery  party.” 
This  included  not  only  the  poor  whites,  “who  regard  the 
slave  as  a  rival  in  production,”  but  also  “those  who  are 
wearied  out  with  the  struggle  of  unproductive  labors 
.  .  .  and  those  who  desire  more  populous  white  com- 

72  Report  of  Chief  Justice  James  H.  Lumpkin  to  the  Georgia  legis¬ 
lature,  concerning  the  Slave  Code,  December  1849,  in  the  Boston  Lib¬ 
erator,  July  19,  1850,  quoting  the  United  States  Law  Magazine  for 
January,  1850. 

73  T.  Eubank,  Inorganic  Forces  Affecting  Slavery  (N.  Y.,  1860), 
pp._26,  27,  29. 

74  Letter  from  a  Philadelphian  to  a  South  Carolinian.  Washington 
Republic,  June  17,  1850.  For  similar  editorial  opinion  in  the  North,  see 
the  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,  December  25,  1850.  A  Georgian  observed  to 
Fanny  Kemble,  a  decade  before  this,  that  there  would  be  prompt  abol¬ 
ition  if  slavery  proved  definitely  unprofitable;  Fanny  Kemble,  Journal  of 
a  Residence  on  a  Georgia  Plantation  in  1838-1839,  p.  77. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


37 


munities  for  the  purposes  of  trade  and  education.  This 
combination  of  opinion  against  slavery  has  prodigously 
increased  within  a  few  years,  and  is  now  increasing  at 
a  rapid  pace.  Numbers  are  every  day  added  to  those 
who  long  for  the  exodus  of  the  slave.”73  This  state¬ 
ment  suggests  exaggeration,  but  the  fact  that  it  was 
reprinted  in  a  strongly  proslavery  Georgia  paper, 
without  denial,  is  of  some  interest.  Such  a  view,  even 
if  allowance  be  made  for  exaggeration,  taken  in  con¬ 
junction  with  the  uncertain  defense  of  slavery  as  an 
economic  order  in  the  Georgia  papers,  would  seem  sug¬ 
gestive.  Some  practical  men,  despite  the  prosperity  of 
1848-1850,  were  uncertain  as  to  the  economic  desir¬ 
ability  of  slave  labor.  And  those  who  insisted  upon  it 
were  dogmatic  in  their  conviction,  offering  little  real 
economic  evidence  to  support  their  view.  This  leads 
naturally  to  the  question  as  to  why  intelligent  south¬ 
erners  insisted  upon  the  economic  desirability  of  a 
labor  system  whose  value,  when  denied,  could  not  be 
well  demonstrated. 

The  most  obvious  reason  for  the  planter’s  refusal 
to  view  too  critically  the  economics  of  slave  labor  was 
the  irritation  aroused  by  the  other  types  of  criticism. 
The  reaction  to  scathing  moral  and  theological  attacks 
was  a  general  justification  that  tended  to  defend  all 
aspects  of  the  institution.  This  psychological  factor 
doubtless  played  its  part,  along  with  economic  factors, 
in  producing  the  general  change  in  attitude  towards 
slavery  which  characterized  the  development  of  south¬ 
ern  thought  between  1820  and  18  5  0.76  Southern  pride 

75  Columbus  Times,  January  23,  1849.  Cf.  Ingle,  Southern  Sidelights, 
pp.  326,  327.  < 

™  For  a  statement  of  this  change,  see  Dodd,  The  Cotton  Kingdom, 
pp.  49-59,  61-69. 


t 


38 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


became  involved  in  the  defense  of  slavery,  and  the- 
southerner  of  1850  was  apt  to  feel  that  the  economic  as 
well  as  the  moral  value  of  slavery  must  be  defended  at 
all  costs.7'  Some  Georgia  observers  were  conscious 
of  this  psychological  factor  and  believed  that,  had  the 
abolitionists  never  spoken,  voluntary  emancipation 
would  have  proceeded  apace  in  the  South.78  The 
second  reason  for  the  planter’s  failure  to  be  critical  of 
slave  labor  was  the  fear  that  such  an  attitude  would 
encourage  the  northern  demand  for  immediate  eman¬ 
cipation  and  that  this  would  raise  the  danger  of  large  ' 
property  loss.  This,  of  course,  was  in  northern  eyes 
the  chief  reason  for  southern  opposition  to  abolition.79 
It  was,  however,  a  business  view  and  could  have  been 
overcome,  other  things  being  equal,  by  proof  of  eco¬ 
nomic  advantages  in  gradual  emancipation. 

Other  things,  however,  rarely  were  equal.  The 
planter  feared  that  free  labor  would  be  less  efficient 
than  slave  labor  and  that  this  loss  in  efficiency  might 
counterbalance  other  advantages  in  a  free  system.  To 
be  sure,  northern  men  held  that  free  labor  was  more’ 
efficient  than  slave,  but  here  they  often  failed  to  realize 
the  peculiar  nature  of  southern  labor.  The  slave  was 
not  only  a  slave,  he  was  also  a  Negro,  and  most  south¬ 
erners  were  convinced  that  the  Negro  would  not  work 
as  well  a  freedman  as  he  did  a  slave. 

It  might  have  been  urged  in  reply,  and  indeed  was 
expected  by  a  few  antislavery  men,  that  the  place 
of  the  inefficient  freedmen  could  be  taken  by  white 

"  See,  e.g.,  editorial  of  the  Norfolk  (Va.)  Argus,  in  the  Charleston 
Mercury,  January  1,  1851. 

,8Jas.  H.  Lumpkin  to  Howell  Cobb,  January  21,  1848,  Toombs , 
Stephens  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  94. 

”  G.  M.  Weston,  Progress  of  Slavery,  p.  187. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


39 


laborers.80  This  seemed  impossible  to  the  planter, 
however,  not  only  because  of  the  difficulty  of  ridding 
the  country  of  the  Negroes,81  but  because  he  believed 
the  Negroes  alone  were  physiologically  adapted  to 
work  in  the  rice  and  cotton  fields.82 

It  is  but  a  step  from  the  statement  of  this  racial 
factor  affecting  the  labor  system  to  the  consideration 
of  the  general  significance  of  race  in  the  whole  slavery 
controversy.  It  was  this  race  problem  which  supplied 
the  planter  with  a  third  motive  for  refusing  to  judge 
slavery  simply  upon  economic  grounds.  Now  it  was 
axiomatic  in  the  South  that  the  Negroes  were  of  an 
inferior  race.  This  view  needed  no  defense  at  home, 
but,  in  reply  to  abolitionist  attacks,  it  was  substantiated 
by  quasi-scientific  arguments  concerning  physiology, 
anthropology,  and  the  like.83  When  it  had  been  estab¬ 
lished  that  the  Negro  was  inferior,  it  followed  that  he 
needed  guidance  and  control,  both  for  his  own  sake  and 
for  that  of  the  whites  associated  with  him  in  the  com¬ 
munity.  Slavery  supplied  just  what  was  needed  as  a 
system  of  control.  It  kept  the  Negroes  working,  kept 
them  in  their  proper  social  position,  and  kept  them  con¬ 
tented.84  Hence,  when  abolitionism  attacked  slavery, 

80  G.  H.  Hatcher  to  J.  C.  Calhoun,  Jan.  5,  1848,  Calhoun  Papers, 
quoted  by  Boucher,  “In  Re  That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  op.  cit., 
p.  43. 

81  For  Georgia  opinion  on  the  failure  of  the  colonization  movement, 
see  T.  R.  R.  Cobb,  Law  of  Negro  Slavery,  XIV  and  XV,  (1858). 

82  For  the  medical  argument  in  favor  of  Negro  slavery,  see  Dr. 
Cartwright’s  letter  to  Daniel  Webster,  De  B  ova’s  Review,  III.  53-62. 
This  contains  an  excellent  resume  of  the  several  reasons  for  opposing 
emancipation.  See  also  Bryant  Tyson,  The  Institution  of  Slavery  in 
the  Southern  States,  pp.  14,  15.  For  a  clear  modern  statement,  see 
Phillips,  American  Negro  Slavery,  pp.  400,  401. 

83  For  a  standard  discussion  of  this  sort,  see  J.  H.  Van  Evrie,  Negroes 
and  Negro  Slavery,  Pt.  I,  passim. 

84  When  there  was  some  talk  in  Alabama  in  1850  about  danger  of 
slave  insurrection,  the  Savannah  Republican,  January  18,  1851,  remarked 
that  “no  man  really  believes  there  is  any  dissatisfcation  among  the 
blacks.”  Cf.  W.  H.  Russell,  Pictures  of  Southern  Life,  p.  27 ;  Mitchell, 
“Frederick  Law  Olmsted,”  Johns  Hopkins  Studies,  XLII.  No.  2,  pp. 
127-129. 


40 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


it  attacked  three  things  simultaneously:  a  form  of 
property,  a  system  of  labor,  and  a  scheme  of  social 
control. 

The  fear  that  emancipation  would  disturb  the 
status  quo  in  race  relationships  and  bring  on  social 
chaos  was  general  and  doubtless  sincere  in  the  cotton 
states  of  1850.  Its  sincerity  is  attested  by  its  appear¬ 
ance  in  letters  of  a  most  private  character  as  well  as  in 
papers  and  speeches  intended  for  public  perusal.  “The 
abolitionists,”  wrote  a  Charlestonian  to  Governor  Sea- 
brook  of  South  Carolina  in  1850,  “are  every  day  rais¬ 
ing  up  the  pretentions  of  the  blacks  to  equality  with  the 
whites,  and  in  the  end,  after  we  have  conceded  and 
conceded,  they  will  demand  that  too,  and  we  will  have 
to  quit  the  country  .  .  .  for  lack  of  courage  to  main¬ 
tain  a  right  bequeathed  by  an  illustrious  ancestry.”85 
The  need  for  slavery  as  a  form  of  social  control  was 
emphasized  in  all  public  manifestoes  in  the  South 
from  this  period  to  the  Civil  War.86  That  it  was 
emphasized  may  be  explained  by  the  assumption  that 
southerners  found  it  a  more  effective  argument  than 
the  relatively  selfish  one  concerning  property  loss. 
But  its  sincerity  and  justice  can  hardly  be  questioned, 
in  view  of  the  private  expressions  noted  above  and  in 
view  also  of  subsequent  events  during  the  Reconstruc¬ 
tion  period. 

85  Thos.  Lehre  to  Seabrook,  September  6,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

88  See,  e.g.,  Address  of  the  Hon.  H.  L.  Benning,  Commissioner  from 
Georgia  to  the  Virginia  State  Convention.  Feb.  18,  1861.  (Richmond 
1861),  pp.  22-26.  For  other  expressions  of  this  general  view  in  public 
addresses,  see  the  Resolutions  of  the  Second  Session  of  the  Nashville 
Convention  of  1850,  (Washington  Republic,  Nov.  26,  1850)  ;  J.  C.  Cal¬ 
houn’s  “Southern  Address’’  of  1849;  ( Address  of  the  Southern  Members 
of  Congress  to  their  Constituents,  Washington,  D.  C..  1849)  ;  and  the 
preamble  to  the  Resolutions  of  the  Georgia  State  Convention  of  1850, 
( Proceedings  of  the  Georgia  State  Convention,  Milledgeville,  1850). 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


41 


The  precedents  to  which  southerners  pointed  to 
prove  the  reality  of  their  race  fears  were,  first,  the  sup¬ 
posedly  degraded  character  of  those  Negroes  who  had 
been  freed87  and,  second,  the  economic  and  social 
decadence  which,  they  claimed,  had  been  caused  by 
emancipation  in  the  French  and  British  West  Indies.88 
The  southern  literature  concerning  this  West  Indian 
story  was  large  and  suggestive,  though  it  rarely  made 
any  allowance  for  environmental  or  other  forces  apart 
from  the  racial  factors  involved. 

The  general  race  problem  seemed  so  vital  a  part  of 
the  slave  problem  that  the  phrase  “the  negro-politico 
question”  began  to  be  used  in  Georgia  as  synonomous 
with  the  “slavery  problem.”89  Some  southerners  de¬ 
clared  definitely  that  all  other  phases  of  the  slave  prob¬ 
lem  were  of  minor  importance  and  that,  were  it  not  for 
it,  emancipation  would  be  gladly  granted  by  many.90 
Perhaps  the  clearest  claim  that  the  race  problem  was 
the  essence  of  the  slavery  question  was  not  made  by  a 
southerner,  however,  but  by  a  Philadelphia  scholar 
writing  just  before  the  war.  “There  is  too  much  talk,” 
he  declared,  “of  slavery  in  the  abstract.  Slavery  im¬ 
plies  both  a  master  and  a  servant.  Here  the  servant 
is  a  negro  and  the  master  a  white  man,  and  their  racial 
characteristics  determine  their  mutual  relationships. 
What  is  called  the  slave  question  ought  to  he  called  the 

87  Savannah  Republican,  Jan.  6,  1848;  Free  Negroism  (New  York, 
n.  d.).  p.  6. 

88  B.  Tyson,  The  Institution  of  Slavery  in  the  Southern  States,  p.  37 ; 
Free  Negroism,  p.  7 ;  J.  Townsend,  The  Present  Peril  of  the  Southern 
States  (Charleston,  1850),  p.  10;  Slavery  Indispensable  Parallel  to  Civil¬ 
ization,  (Baltimore,  1855),  p.  28;  for  British  opinion  on  the  islands,  see 
A  Statement  of  Facts,  illustrating  the  Administration  of  the  Abolition 
Law  and  the  Sufferings  of  the  Negro  Apprentices  in  the  Island  of 
Jamaica,  (London,  1837)  passim;  The  Case  of  the  Free-Labor  British 
Colonies,  etc.  (London,  1852),  passim. 

88  Boston  Courier  (Savannah  Corr.),  Dec.  27,  1850. 

co  Tyson,  op.  cit.,  p.  37. 


42 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


negro  question.  On  the  inherent ,  unalterable  qualities 
of  the  negro  hinges  the  whole  question  of  slavery 91 
.  .  .  Slavery  is  an  evil  thing.  But  we  have  the  negro 
and  therefore  must  have  the  slave.”92 

It  was  incomprehensible  to  some  that  so  many 
northerners  could  not  see  this  aspect  of  the  emancipa¬ 
tion  problem.  “The  economical  effects  of  slavery  have 
usually  been  argued  from  an  amazingly  unreasonable 
point  of  view,”  wrote  a  Virginian  after  the  Civil  War. 
“Our  enemies  persist  in  discussing  it  as  an  election  to 
be  made  between  a  system  of  labor  by  free  yeomen  of 
the  same  race,  and  a  system  of  labor  of  African  slaves 
on  the  other ;  as  though  the  South  had  any  such  choice 
in  its  power.  If  the  social  conditions  in  Virginia  ex¬ 
hibited  inferiority  in  its  system  of  labor,  the  true  cause 
of  the  evil  was  to  be  sought  in  the  presence  of  the 
Africans  among  us,  not  in  their  enslavement .”93 

In  an  effort  to  impress  the  North  with  the  serious¬ 
ness  of  the  race  problem,  southern  writers  reminded 
the  northern  people  of  the  degree  of  their  own  race 
feeling.  Indeed,  many  Georgians  were  convinced  that 
northerners  would  not  treat  Negroes  as  well  as  they 
did,  free  or  slave.  Race  riots  in  Cincinnati  and  Phila¬ 
delphia,  northern  refusal  of  economic  opportunities  to 
Negroes,  and  opposition  to  free  Negro  immigration  to 

81  The  italics  are  my  own.  This  view  has  been  revived  in  late  years 
with  even  greater  force  by  writers  on  Negro  history:  “The  slave  ques¬ 
tion,”  says  one  of  them,  “was  in  a  sense  hardly  more  than  an  incident 
in  the  Negro  Problem”  ;  B.  Brawley,  A  Social  History  of  the  American 
Negro,  p.  116. 

82  S.  G.  Fisher,  Laivs  of  Race  as  Connected  with  Slavery  (1859), 
pp.  8,  9.  This  is  a  remarkable  essay,  but  seems  to  have  attracted  little 
or  no  contemporary  attention.  Its  viewpoint  was  ignored  by  all  post- 
bellum  northern  writers  on  southern  history,  and  its  existence  was  gen¬ 
erally  overlooked  by  the  southern.  Cf.  Stone,  “Some  Problems  of 
Southern  Economic  History,”  American  Historical  Review,  XIII.  790. 

82 R.  L.  Dabney,  Defense  of  Virginia  (N.  Y.,  1867),  p.  296. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


43 


northern  towns  were  cited  to  prove  the  point.94  Aboli¬ 
tionist  admissions  that  there  was  intense  race  prejudice 
in  New  York  State95  were  received  with  some  pardon¬ 
able  satisfaction  in  Georgia,  and  the  feeling  naturally 
developed  that  either  these  Yankees  were  hypocrites,  or 
they  would  appreciate  the  southern  point  of  view  on 
the  race  situation.96 

Southern  warnings  about  racial  troubles  sometimes 
did  receive  sympathetic  attention  in  the  North  among 
conservative  circles.  If  abolitionism  led  to  secession 
and  Civil  War,  it  was  admitted,  that  “would  be  terrible 
and  destroy  southern  prosperity.  There  would  then  be 
no  cotton  supply  for  the  North  and  this  would  be  most 
unfortunate.”97  Another  northern  writer,  in  discuss¬ 
ing  the  South,  admitted  that  “the  grand  objection  in 
the  community  to  abolition  (and  it  is  probably  nearly 
universal)  is  the  belief  that  the  negroes,  if  freed,  would 
be  a  pest  of  society,  .  .  .  would  prey  upon  the 
whites  and  live  uncontrolled.  Many,  no  doubt,  think 
the  lives  and  property  of  the  whites  would  be  at  their 
disposal  .  .  .  This  is  serious  and  demands  deliber¬ 
ate  attention.”98  Weston,  an  able  and  moderate  critic 
of  slavery,  recognized  the  claim  that  “the  question  of 
slavery  in  the  United  States  is  embarrassed  by  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  race  and  color.”  He  implied,  however,  that  the 
claim  was  unfounded  and  suspected  it  was  largely 
propaganda  to  mask  the  simple  fear  of  property  loss. 
“There  is  no  reason,”  he  wrote,  “to  suppose  that  even 

94  Savannah  News,  Feb.  8,  1850. 

95  New  York  Tribune,  Dec.  16,  1850. 

96  Savannah  News,  September  7,  1850.  This  is  the  general  view  which 
has  recently  been  emphasized  in  the  work  of  southern  writers  on  the 
race  question.  See  A.  H.  Stone,  American  Race  Problem,  passim. 

97  Philadelphia  North  American,  December  21,  1849 ;  March  4,  1850. 

88  Inquiry  into  the  Condition  and  Prospects  of  the  African  Race 

in  the  United  States,  by  an  American  (Phila.,  1839),  p.  130. 


44 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  liberation  instantly  and  en  masse  of  the  slaves  at 
the  South  would  be  attended  with  peril,  whatever  losses 
and  inconveniences  it  might  occasion.  Negroes  are 
not  beasts,  but  men — not  caged,  but  at  large,  easily 
governed,  whether  as  free  labor  or  as  slaves.”  He 
insinuated  that  the  moment  the  owners  found  slavery 
unprofitable,  they  would  suddenly  discover  that 
Negroes  were  not  at  all  socially  dangerous  and  could 
be  freed  with  safety.  “Moreover,”  he  declared,  “as 
soon  as  the  race  is  thrust  upon  its  own  resources,  it  will 
be  unable  to  survive  in  the  struggle  for  existence,  will 
gradually  disappear,  and  thereby  automatically  remove 
even  the  possibility  of  a  race  problem.”99 

Other  northern  observers  denied  the  precedents 
cited  in  the  southern  argument  concerning  the  effects 
of  emancipation  in  the  West  Indies.  Things  were  not 
so  bad  there  as  they  had  been  painted,  and  what  was 
bad  was  not  necessarily  due  to  the  racial  qualities  of  the 
Negroes.100  At  times  the  whole  argument  that  the 
factor  of  race  entered  into  the  slavery  question  was 
categorically  denied  and  denounced  by  the  more  bitter 
enemies  of  the  slave  apologists.  “This  southern  claim 
of  a  social  danger  in  emancipation,”  declared  Senator 
Benton  of  Missouri,  “is  but  a  pure  and  simple  inven¬ 
tion  of  John  C.  Calhoun,  not  only  without  evidence  but 
against  evidence.”101  Finally,  it  is  probable  that  the 
majority  of  northern  men  never  quite  appreciated  the 
force  of  the  southern  view  concerning  race,  largely 

"Weston,  The  Progress  of  Slavery,  pp.  243,  244.  Cf.  Van  Evrie, 
Negroes  and  Negro  Slavery,  Pt.  I,  309  ff. 

100  Philadelphia  North  American  (corr.),  Dec.  22,  1849.  For  a  care¬ 
ful  antislavery  view  of  developments  in  the  Indies,  see  the  British 
Anti-Slavery  Advocate  for  Feb.,  1857,  quoted  in  W.  Chambers,  Ameri¬ 
can  Slavery  and  Color,  (London,  1857),  pp.  125-136. 

101  T.  H.  Benton,  Thirty  Years’  View,  II.  735.  Cf.  Jefferson  Davis, 
A  Memoir,  by  His  Wife,  I.  456. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


45 


because  they  themselves  were  not  in  contact  with  the 
problem.102 

The  subject  should  not  be  dismissed  until  the  last 
and  perhaps  the  most  peculiar  phase  of  its  discussion  is 
noted.  This  is  the  fact  that  the  writings  of  the  most 
intense  proslavery  advocates  were  used  by  antislav¬ 
ery  men  to  prove  that  the  race  problem  was  really 
not  important.  Writers  like  Fitzhugh,  who  had  de¬ 
veloped  the  logic  of  slavery  apologetics  to  an  apotheosis 
of  the  system,  had  logically  concluded  that  slavery 
should  be  established  in  all  countries,  regardless  of 
race  or  other  factors.  This,  said  some  abolitionists, 
proves  that  what  the  southerners  want  is  not  race  con¬ 
trol,  but  slavery  as  a  labor  system  per  se.  No  doubt 
they  have  been  forced  to  it  by  a  realization  that  many 
of  their  slaves  are  now  largely  white  in  blood  and  that 
the  old  argument  about  “race  control”  will  no  longer 
justify  holding  such  people  in  servitude.103  Such  criti¬ 
cism,  of  course,  assumed  for  its  own  purposes  that 
extremists  like  Fitzhugh  represented  average  southern 
opinion. 

The  realization  of  the  significance  of  the  race 
problem  in  Georgia  and  other  cotton  states  led  to  two 
divergent  political  attitudes  towards  the  American 
Federal  Union,  and  it  is  this  influence  of  the  problem 
upon  political  opinion  that  justifies  its  discussion  in  the 
introduction  to  a  political  narrative.  In  the  first  place, 
the  fear  of  racial  difficulties  that  might  follow  secession 
was  one  reason  that  led  Georgians  to  desire  to  postpone 
hasty  action  against  the  Union  so  long  as  there  was 

102  For  an  instance  of  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the  problem,  see 
the  New  York  Evening  Post,  Jan.  12,  1848.  Cf.  the  Savannah  News, 
Jan.  21,  1848. 

103  W.  Chambers,  American  Slavery  and  Color,  (London,  1857) ^ 

pp.  1,  2. 


46 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


hope  that  slavery  could  be  preserved  in  the  Union. 
Secession,  it  was  thought,  would  give  the  abolitionists 
full  control  of  the  northern  government.  This  would 
mean  more  encouragement  to  fugitive  slaves,  and  this, 
in  turn,  would  result  in  efforts  in  the  border  states  to 
sell  all  their  remaining  Negroes  to  the  cotton  states. 
This  region  would  then  see  hastened  the  day  when  a 
surplus  Negro  population  would  become  an  economic 
and  social  burden.  Or,  if  secession  led  to  civil  war, 
this  might  in  turn  lead  to  servile  war  with  all  its  conse¬ 
quences.  Hence  secession,  instead  of  saving  slavery, 
would  destroy  it.104 

In  addition  to  this,  some  Georgia  planters  felt  that 
a  strong  Union  government  would  be  a  guarantee  of 
social  safety  to  the  planter  when  plantation  life  had 
become  more  highly  developed  in  the  Black  Belt,  and 
the  rest  of  the  poor  whites  had  been  forced  to  leave  the 
region.  ‘‘Does  it  not  become  us  as  an  intelligent 
people,”  asked  a  Georgia  planter,  “to  anticipate  that 
period  when  so  large  a  proportion  of  our  population 
will  have  become  slaves,  and  ask  whether  we  will  not 
want  then  the  Federal  Government  to  give  us  safety 
and  security?”105 

All  of  this  relates,  however,  to  the  slavery  question 
in  general.  The  specific  phase  of  the  general  problem 
which  became  most  acute  in  the  United  States  in  the 
forties  was  the  question  of  the  extension  of  slavery. 
There  had  long  been  an  economic  question  of  slavery 
extension,  involving  the  migration  of  masters  and 
slaves  from  the  old  to  the  new  slave-holding  states. 
The  whole  process  had  several  effects.  It  usually  left 
the  old  states  with  wornout  lands  and  at  the  same  time 

1<M  Macon  Journal,  in  the  Natchez  (Miss.)  Courier,  Oct.  29,  1850. 

l“  Eli  H.  Baxter  to  the  Committee,  the  Macon  Union  Celebration, 
Feb.  19,  1851,  Proceedings  of  the  Macon  Union  Celebration,  pp.  8,  9. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


47 


brought  them  into  competition  with  the  more  prosper¬ 
ous  newer  communities.  It  also  increased  the  supply 
of  cotton  and  the  demand  for  slaves,  which  meant, 
other  things  being  equal,  a  decrease  in  the  price  of  cot¬ 
ton  and  an  increase  in  that  of  slaves.  This,  though  it 
might  not  have  serious  effects  upon  the  newer  and 
more  prosperous  states,  tended  still  further  to  the  eco¬ 
nomic  embarrassment  of  the  planters  of  the  older 
states.  As  Georgia  was  one  of  this  latter  group,  the 
immediate  economic  interests  of  her  planters  were  apt 
to  be  opposed  or  at  least  indifferent  to  the  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  more  slave  territory.106 

Slave  extension,  however,  was  attractive  to  some 
Georgians,  as  to  other  southerners,  as  a  political  ex¬ 
pedient.  Since  abolitionism  was  growing  simultane¬ 
ously  with  nationalism  in  the  North,  the  control  of  the 
Federal  Government  by  antislavery  men  would  proba¬ 
bly  mean  forced  abolition  at  the  command  of  that  gov¬ 
ernment.  Such  control  must  therefore  be  avoided,  and 
the  only  way  to  avoid  it  was  to  extend  slavery  and 
admit  new  slave  states.  Those  who  favored  slave  ex¬ 
tension  because  it  would  give  such  political  protection 
to  the  ultimate  interests  of  slavery,  did  not  hesitate  to 
claim  for  it  other  and  more  immediate  advantages. 
Dire  consequences  were  predicted  in  case  there  was  no 
outlet  for  the  normal  increase  in  the  slave  population 
of  the  older  states.  If  all  the  slaves  were  held  in  the  old 
states,  where  soils  were  exhausted,  their  natural  in¬ 
crease  would  soon  render  their  numbers  superfluous. 

106  For  an  excellent  contemporary  analysis  of  this  situation,  see 
Weston,  op.  cit.,  pp.  205-209,  217.  This,  to  be  sure,  is  a  priori  reasoning, 
but  it  offers  a  partial  interpretation  that  well  fits  the  facts  of  the 
average  planter’s  indifference  or  opposition  to  slavery  expansion.  There 
is  a  mass  of  evidence  concerning  his  indifference  in  Cole's  Whig  Party 
and  in  Boucher’s  “In  Re  That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  Mississippi  Valley 
Historical  Review,  VIII.  Nos.  1,  2. 


48 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Even  if  their  value  fell  greatly  as  a  result  of  this  (and 
this  was  not  always  admitted),  they  would  still  become 
“not  worth  their  board  and  keep.”  They  would  “eat 
the  master  out  of  house  and  home.”  This  would,  after 
years  of  economic  depression,  force  the  owners  to  fail 
completely  or  to  emancipate.107  But  this  process  in¬ 
volved  the  whole  danger  of  the  race  problem,  and 
possibly  race  war,  which  has  already  been  discussed. 
“It  is  not  unreasonable  to  believe  that  the  time  will 
come,”  observed  a  Georgia  editor,  “when  the  value  of 
slave  property  will  have  become  so  slight  that  the 
owner  will  be  more  than  willing  to  get  rid  of  his  slaves. 
But  what  a  horrible  freedom  that  will  be  to  the  African 
— proceeding  from  the  worthlessness  of  his  labor — 
which  will  mean  suffering  and  degradation.”  This,  in 
turn,  would  mean  social  turmoil  and  race  danger  for 
the  whites.108 

It  is  typical  of  the  confusion  of  opinion  that  existed 
concerning  slavery  extension  that,  while  some  men 
thus  demanded  it  to  save  the  old  states  from  having 
too  many  Negroes,  others  opposed  it  in  order  that  too 
many  Negroes  should  not  leave  the  old  stages.  “If  the 
extentionists  have  their  way,”  wrote  a  famous  South 
Carolinian,  “our  state  will  lose  all  her  negro  labor, 
while  her  ague  and  congestive  fever  abide.”109  In 
other  words,  old  slave  states  like  Georgia  and  South 
Carolina  needed  a  large  Negro  population  for  labor, 
but  must  avoid  one  that  was  too  large,  lest  it  become 
an  economic  burden.  Just  how  an  extension  of  terri¬ 
tory  proposed  at  any  particular  time  would  affect  this 

1OT  Milledgeville  Federal  Union,  January  15,  1850;  Jackson  (Miss.), 
Flag  of  the  Union,  February  14,  1851. 

108  Savannah  Georgian,  January  5,  1848. 

109  General  James  Hamilton  to  the  Charleston  Mercury,  in  the  Wash¬ 
ington  Republic,  December  2,  1850. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


49 


nice  balance  in  Negro  numbers  was  difficult  to  say; 
and  this  difficulty  may  partially  explain  that  confusion 
of  southern  opinion  that  often  existed  when  extension 
seemed  imminent. 

It  should  now  be  possible  to  correlate  what  has  been 
said  about  prosperity  in  Georgia  in  1850,  about  the 
threat  to  that  condition  imminent  in  the  antislavery 
movement,  about  the  attitude  of  Georgians  toward  the 
institution  of  slavery  so  attacked,  and  about  the  special 
question  of  slavery  extension  which  involved  all  of 
these  and  led  to  the  political  crisis  to  be  studied.  In 
1850  the  antislavery  forces  of  the  North  attempted  to 
prevent  all  further  slavery  extension.  They  also  at¬ 
tacked  other  phases  of  slavery,  such  as  its  existence  in 
the  District  of  Columbia.  What  should  the  attitude 
of  Georgians  be  towards  this  movement  and  this  crisis? 
Two  divergent  answers  were  given,  one  looking  to¬ 
wards  compromise  with  the  North,  the  other  towards 
separation  from  the  North.  Why  was  this  divergence? 

The  answer  may  be  given  in  the  form  of  a  rela¬ 
tively  simple  hypothesis,  so  far  as  the  dominating 
planter  classes  were  concerned.  Their  immediate  eco¬ 
nomic  interests,  a3  suggested,  w&re-opposed  to  the 
extension  of  slave  territory.  There  was  no  economic 
reason,  then,  for  demanding  secession  from  the  Union 
simply  because  the  North  insisted  that  there  should  be 
no  further  slavery  extension.  There  was,  moreover,  a 
special  reason  for  avoiding  such  a  crisis;  namely,  the 
desire  of  all  propertied  men  to  avoid  danger  of  social 
turmoil.  The  Union  had  permitted  the  development  of 
good  business  conditions;  the  same  Union  might  be 
necessary  to  preserve  such  conditions.  Planters  who 
went  no  further  than  this  in  their  analysis  of  the  crisis 
of  1850  were,  quite  naturally,  insistent  that  compro- 


50 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


mise  be  made  with  the  North  in  order  that  the  preser¬ 
vation  of  the  Union  might  insure  the  preservation  of 
peace  and  prosperity. 

The  moment,  however,  that  a  planter  was  convinced 
that  the  various  northern  attacks  on  slavery  would  lead 
gradually  but  inevitably  to  abolition,  he  foresaw  not 
only  the  sudden  ruin  of  prosperity,  but  all  the  other 
social  dangers  that  have  been  described.  If  this  were 
the  case,  the  very  Union  that  had  seemed  a  protection 
now  appeared  to  him  as  a  league  with  destruction. 
Hence  it  must  be  abandoned  at  once.  Thus  the  very 
planter  who  had  previously  been  the  most  ardent  cham¬ 
pion  of  the  Union,  would  now  become  its  most  intense 
enemy.  In  both  cases  his  economic  and  social  interests 
were  the  same ;  the  difference  was  due  simply  to  a  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinion  as  to  how  far  these  interests  were 
in  danger. 

The  twro  views  that  resulted  from  this  situation 
were  apparently  most  divergent.  One  planter  argued 
earnestly  for  the  Union  and  the  other  against  it.  Each 
was  so  sincerely  desirous  of  defending  the  economic 
interests  of  slavery  that  he  could  scarcely  believe  the 
other  sincere  in  the  same  desire.  In  reality,  however, 
their  views  were  not  so  divergent  after  all.  The 
‘‘Union  man”  was  usually  just  one  step  behind  the 
secessionist,  and  that  step  was  simply  a  matter  of  evi¬ 
dence  and  conviction.  Cite  more  convincing  evidence 
to  prove  that  the  Union  would  lead  to  abolition,  and, 
presto,  he  would  become  as  violent  a  disunionist  as  the 
other  fellow.  The  manifestoes  of  the  Union  party  in 
Georgia  in  1850  clearly  recognized  the  truth  of  this 
and  carefully  served  notice  upon  the  North  that  any 
further  evidence  of  a  tendency  towards  emancipation 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


51 


would  make  all  Georgian  secessionists.110  The  sudden 
spectacular  shift  of  such  Georgia  leaders  as  Toombs 
and  Stephens  from  a  strong  Union  position  to  a 
southern-rights  position — and  back  again — may  be 
explained  in  part  by  these  very  circumstances. 

Why,  however,  were  a  great  majority  of  Georgians 
of  the  planter  and  merchant  classes  satisfied  in  1850 
that  the  Union  did  not  necessarily  menace  slavery? 
Why  was  it  so  difficult  to  convince  them  that  their  ulti¬ 
mate  interests  were  in  danger?  One  rather  obvious 
answer  may  be  given,  which  is  at  least  worthy  of  seri¬ 
ous  consideration.  A  class  that  prospers  does  not  wish 
to  court  danger  before  it  is  thrust  upon  it.  The  pros¬ 
perity  of  the  Georgia  planters  was  a  bird  in  hand ;  the 
vague  hopes  held  out  by  secessionists  were  two — but 
in  a  bush. 

This  opinion  is  not  merely  a  present  hypothesis,  but 
one  which  was  held  consciously  at  the  time  by  observers 
of  Georgia.  Such  critics  were  convinced  that,  had  busi¬ 
ness  conditions  been  bad,  the  Georgia  capitalist  classes 
would  have  been  far  more  ready  to  see  in  the  anti¬ 
slavery  movement  a  cause  for  extreme  measures.  Eco¬ 
nomic  ills  and  psychological  depression  would  almost 
certainly  have  been  blamed,  rightly  or  wrongly,  upon 
the  Federal  government.  A  Union  that  had  brought 
these  things  would  have  been  no  Union  to  preserve. 
General  James  Hamilton,  who  was  a  rather  keen  critic 
of  economic  factors  in  the  drama  of  1850,  passed 
through  Central  Georgia  in  the  fall  of  that  year,  when 
the  political  crisis  over  the  secession  movement  was 
supposed  to  be  at  its  height.  He  found  the  state  “in 

110  See,  e.g.,  the  “Georgia  Platform”  of  1850,  which  is  but  this  one 
step  removed  from  a  southern-rights  document,  H.  V.  Ames,  State 
Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  pp.  271,  272. 


52 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


a  condition  of  philosophic  calm,”  since  “thirteen  cents 
a  pound  for  cotton  was  a  powerful  contributor  to  make 
civil  war  and  revolution  exceedingly  distasteful  to  her 
people.”111  In  like  manner,  observers  in  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  who  desired  aid  from  Georgia  in  a  secession 
movement,  feared  that  the  good  times  there  would  de¬ 
feat  their  purpose.  “Dis-union  feeling  in  Georgia,” 
declared  the  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  “is  neutral¬ 
ized  by  the  high  price  of  cotton.”  Her  prosperity  will 
make  her  unwilling  to  make  anv  sacrifice  for  the  cause 
of  secession.11"  Governor  Seabrook,  a  leader  of  the 
secession  movement  in  South  Carolina,  declared  pri¬ 
vately  to  Quitman  of  Mississippi  in  1850  that  “pros¬ 
perity  makes  the  masses  indifferent  to  the  crisis.”113 

So,  too,  felt  northern  observers  in  Georgia.  The 
Savannah  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Courier,  al¬ 
though  taking  the  other  side  in  the  political  controversy 
from  that  held  by  the  Carolina  papers,  reached  exactly 
the  same  conclusion  as  to  the  economic  forces  at  work. 
“It  is  very  fortunate  for  this  Union,”  he  observed, 
“that  cotton  is  thirteen  to  fourteen  cents  a  pound,  in¬ 
stead  of  four  to  five.  There  is  now  a  state  of  pros¬ 
perity  they  do  not  care  to  disturb — but  were  it  other¬ 
wise,  all  the  depression  in  trade  and  prices  would  have 
been  attributed  to  the  burden  of  the  Union  and  to 
the  baneful  effects  of  national  legislation  and  northern 
agitation.”114  Such  hypotheses,  while  they  probably 

111  Letter  to  the  Charleston  Mercury,  reprinted  in  the  Washington 
Republic,  December  2,  1850.  Hamilton  wrote  from  Texas,  November  11, 
and  must  therefore  have  passed  through  Georgia  not  later  than  October, 
i.e.,  in  the  early  part  of  the  Georgia  convention  campaign  of  that  fall. 

112  Columbia  tri-weekly  South  Carolinian,  June  21,  1849.  The  Mobile 
Daily  Advertiser  made  the  same  analysis  of  the  situation  in  Alabama,  see 
National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  6,  1850. 

113  Seabrook  to  Quitman,  July  15,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

ui  The  Boston  Courier,  November  20,  1850;  Cf.  Richmond  Whig, 
March  5,  1851. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


53 


exaggerated  the  potency  of  purely  economic  factors,  can 
hardly  be  ignored  in  the  light  of  all  the  circumstances 
which  have  been  and  will  be  considered. 

There  is  perhaps  no  better  way  of  emphasizing  the 
potency  of  economic  prosperity  in  preserving  the  pro- 
Union  feeling  in  Georgia  than  to  consider  the  contrast 
existing  between  that  state  and  South  Carolina.  One 
of  the  outstanding  phenomena  in  the  political  history 
of  the  period  was  the  fact  that  the  very  planter  class 
which  was  conservative  in  Georgia  and  the  Gulf  States 
was  radical  in  South  Carolina,  for  in  the  former  it 
was  pro-Union  in  feeling,  while  in  the  latter  it  led  the 
secession  movement.  This  relatively  radical  attitude 
of  the  Carolina  planters  had  prevailed  there  since  the 
early  thirties,  and  it  is  suggestive  that  its  development 
had  been  concomitant  with  the  economic  decadence  of 
the  state. 

South  Carolina,  in  the  old  colonial  and  early  state¬ 
hood  days,  had  been  a  prosperous  country,  especially  in 
the  plantation  area  along  the  coast,  and  this  had  made 
possible  the  development  in  Charleston  of  an  able  and 
highly  cultured  planter  society.  This  society  domi¬ 
nated  the  economic,  social,  and  political  life  of  the  state 
to  an  extent  that  was  unique  even  in  the  cotton  country. 
As  the  area  of  cotton  cultivation  extended  westward, 
however,  and  the  old  lands  of  the  state  wore  out,  Caro¬ 
lina  began  to  suffer  all  the  typical  ills  inherent  in  the 
slave  and  plantation  systems.  The  worst  of  the  situ¬ 
ation  seemed  to  be  the  impossibility  of  finding  any 
remedy.  Agricultural  improvement  seemed  hopeless, 
for  it  was  easier  to  take  up  new  lands  to  the  west  than 
to  improve  the  old  ones  at  home.  “The  soil’s  slow 
restoration  cannot  be  made  while  Georgia  and  Ala- 


54 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


bama  are  to  the  west,”  admitted  a  Charleston  paper  in 
1838.115 

When  this  situation  was  apparently  made  more 
difficult  for  South  Carolina  by  the  tariff  policy  of 
northern  manufacturers  in  the  twenties,  it  was  natural 
that  the  planters  should  have  laid  many  of  their  diffi¬ 
culties  at  the  door  of  Federal  legislation.  A  distrust  of 
the  economic  advantages  of  the  Union  became  at  this 
time  a  more  or  less  permanent  attitude  in  the  state. 
An  apparent  victory  upon  the  tariff  issue  in  1833  led 
to  but  a  short-lived  satisfaction  in  South  Carolina, 
since  the  next  two  decades  saw  the  rapid  development 
in  the  North  of  the  antislavery  movement,  which  in  a 
new  and  perhaps  more  dangerous  manner  threatened 
the  state’s  economic  system. 

Meanwhile,  the  lower  tariff  schedule  had  not 
brought  the  state  final  relief  from  its  difficulties.  The 
Whig  tariff  of  1842  was  one  of  the  causes  of  its 
second  serious  political  protest — the  so-called  “Bluff ton 
Movement.”  South  Carolina  suffered  even  more  than 
Georgia,  during  the  cotton  depression  terminating 
about  1848,  from  lessened  dividends  and  loss  of  both 
white  and  Negro  population.  In  like  manner,  its  recov¬ 
ery  after  1848  was  less  certain  than  that  in  Georgia. 
The  latter  had  an  obvious  advantage  in  its  newer  lands ; 
better  facilities  for  water  and  rail  transportation;  the 
presence  of  more  northern  capital  and  many  energetic 
northern  tradesmen,  teachers  and  mechanics ;  and, 
finally,  an  advantage  in  that  the  inherent  general  dis¬ 
advantages  of  the  slave  planting  system  had  not  as  yet 
developed  through  so  long  a  period  as  they  had  in  the 
older  state.  As  a  result,  there  was  by  1850  a  distinct 
contrast  in  the  economic  philosophy  of  the  capitalist 

1,6  Charleston  Courier,  March  16,  1838,  in  Jervey,  Life  of  Robert  Y. 
Hayne,  p.  456. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


55 


classes  in  the  two  sister  commonwealths.  Although  in 
Georgia  the  planters,  merchants,  and  editors  were  in¬ 
clined  to  be  “boosters,”  across  the  river  there  was  much 
pessimism.  While  Dr.  Lee  at  Augusta  was  preaching 
optimism  through  the  Chronicle  and  the  Southern  Cul¬ 
tivator ,  ex-Governor  Hammond  at  Charleston  was 
warning  of  approaching  decay.  In  addressing  the  con¬ 
vention  of  the  South  Carolina  Institute  at  that  city  in 
1850,  he  reminded  his  hearers  that  returns  on  cotton 
investments  in  the  state  since  1842  had  averaged  but 
four  and  one-half  per  cent.  “At  such  rates,”  he  con¬ 
tinued,  “our  state  must  soon  become  utterly  impover¬ 
ished  and  of  consequence  wholly  degraded.  Depopu¬ 
lation  must  take  place  rapidly.  Our  slaves  will  go  first 
and  that  institution  from  which  we  have  heretofore 
reaped  the  greatest  benefits  will  be  swept  away.  .  .  . 
This  process  is  already  apparent  around  us.  Since 
about  1830  floating  capital  has  continuously  left  the 
state,  about  $500,000  annually.  .  .  .  Owners  have 
emigrated,  taking  an  average  of  8,300  slaves  per  an¬ 
num,  so  that  by  1840  South  Carolina  had  83,000  less 
slaves  than  the  average  population  increase  should 
have  given  her.”116 

At  the  same  time  that  the  capitalist  class  was  thus 
emigrating  or  facing  decreasing  dividends,  the  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  mass  of  poor  whites  was  most  depressing. 
The  yeomanry  of  South  Carolina  was  a  smaller  group 
and  less  independent  economically  and  politically  than 
the  same  class  in  Georgia. 

The  need  of  doing  something  for  this  class  and, 
what  was  more  important,  of  doing  something  for 
capital,  led  to  a  demand  for  manufactures  in  Carolina, 
as  it  had  in  Georgia.  This  movement,  though  led  by 

116  Quoted  in  De  Bow’s  Review,  VIII.  SOI  (June,  1850). 


56 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  able  William  Gregg,  proved  relatively  less  success¬ 
ful  in  the  older  state.  In  addition  to  the  same  forces 
that  impeded  the  movement  across  the  river,  there  was 
in  Carolina  a  conservative  influence  that  displayed 
more  old-fashioned  opposition  to  ‘‘associated  capital.” 
The  almost  complete  disappearance  of  the  Whig  party 
in  the  state,  for  the  very  reason  that  traditions  there 
were  so  opposed  to  the  tariff  and  other  views  of  that 
party,  severed  that  connection  with  a  northern  pro¬ 
industrial  party  which  was  a  factor  in  promoting  a 
tariff  and  industrial  party  in  Georgia.  In  like  manner 
— it  may  have  been  because  of  the  more  intense  anti¬ 
northern  feeling  in  Carolina  or  because  of  the  more 
aristocratic  tone  of  government  and  society  there — 
fewer  northern  engineers,  mechanics  and  tradesmen 
went  into  the  state  than  did  into  Georgia,  the  “Yankee- 
land  of  the  South.”  Hence  by  1850,  when  the  first  de¬ 
pression  in  cotton  manufacture  set  in,  Carolina  manu¬ 
facturers,  as  well  as  planters,  were  rather  depressed  in 
spirit.  William  Gregg  drew  such  a  dark  picture  of 
industrial  prospects  that  year,  in  writing  for  Dc  Bow’s 
Review ,  that  the  able  editor  thereof  felt  called  upon  to 
deprecate  his  conclusions.117 

Meanwhile,  the  development  of  trade  at  the  port  of 
Charleston  had  been  disappointing.  River  connection 
with  the  interior  was  poor  for  transportation  purposes 
within  the  state,  and  the  attempt  to  control  the  river 
trade  up  the  Savannah,  in  rivalry  with  the  port  of  that 
name,  had  long  since  failed.  The  attempt  to  compete 
with  Savannah  for  the  Augusta  trade  by  running  the 
Charleston  and  Hamburg  Railroad  to  a  point  across 
the  river  from  the  Georgia  city  had  also  partly  failed, 

w  De  Bow’s  Review,  VIII.  134  (February,  1850);  Cf.  Boucher, 
Ante-Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Carolina,  pp.  256-261. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


57 


because  of  the  refusal  of  Augusta  to  permit  bridge 
connection  there.  This  also  was  a  factor  in  discourag¬ 
ing  the  great  dream  of  attracting  the  bulk  of  the  lower 
Mississippi  Valley  trade  to  Charleston. 

Thus  all  interests,  planting,  manufacturing,  and 
trade,  seemed  rather  discouraging  to  the  planter  society 
of  South  Carolina  in  the  late  forties.  In  this  state  of 
mind,  they  were  more  inclined  to  see  the  worst  in  the 
possible  consequences  of  the  northern  antislavery 
movement.  The  traditional  distrust  of  the  Union,  the 
heritage  of  the  thirties,  increased  this  inclination.  Or, 
to  put  the  matter  in  another  way,  South  Carolinians 
were  less  inclined  to  hide  from  themselves  the  ultimate 
menace  of  this  movement  to  their  institutions  than 
were  the  Georgians,  whose  prosperity  inclined  them  to 
conservatism  and  compromise.  While  a  Union  that 
had  been  associated  with  decadence,  and  which  now 
threatened  the  very  existence  of  Carolina’s  economic 
life,  was  no  Union  to  preserve,  there  were,  some  at¬ 
tractive  possibilities  in  a  Southern  Confederacy.  Free 
trade,  the  panacea  for  Carolina’s  ills,  could  be  inaug¬ 
urated.  Then  there  was  a  hope  that  Charleston  would 
become  the  great  port  of  such  a  Confederacy  as  soon 
as  the  Augusta  bridge  was  built  and  western  connec¬ 
tions  made.  But  here  again  Charleston  interests  were 
threatened  by  competition  with  Savannah.  This  riv¬ 
alry  was  a  factor  in  determining  the  relationships  be¬ 
tween  the  two  states  in  1850  and  in  determining  their 
respective  attitudes  toward  the  Union.  These  relation¬ 
ships,  therefore,  merit  special  consideration. 

Cultured  Charleston  had  long  looked  upon  Georgia 
as  a  new  and  relatively  crude  western  country.  Geor¬ 
gians,  in  return,  made  fun  of  the  “dandies”  of  effete 


58 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Charleston.118  This  feeling,  typical  of  the  eastern- 
western  sectional  consciousness  of  the  time,  was  not  in 
itself  serious,  but  it  prepared  a  psychological  basis  for 
the  support  of  any  real  political  or  economic  antago¬ 
nisms  that  might  later  develop.  When  the  Nullifica¬ 
tion  crisis  appeared  in  the  thirties,  such  an  antagonism 
arose.  Most  Georgians  had  economic  or  political 
reasons  for  standing  by  the  central  government  in  that 
controversy.119  From  that  time  on,  many  Georgians 
suspected  Carolina  as  the  home  of  reckless  and  self- 
seeking  radicalism. 

Meanwhile,  the  feeling  towards  the  sister  state  had 
not  been  improved  by  the  efforts  of  Charleston  to  re¬ 
place  Savannah  in  the  control  of  Georgia’s  up-country 
trade.  Savannah  felt  more  strongly  upon  this  matter, 
to  be  sure,  than  did  other  parts  of  the  state  less  directly 
interested ;  indeed,  towns  like  Columbus,  which  looked 
more  for  trade  connections  to  Charleston  than  to  Sav¬ 
annah,  probably  felt  inclined  to  favor  the  former.  Gen¬ 
erally  speaking,  however,  the  sense  of  state  pride  was 
as  strong  in  Georgia  as  in  the  sister  state,  and,  for 
reasons  noted  above,  the  state  pride  of  Georgia  was 
particularly  sensitive  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  Caro¬ 
lina.  The  obvious  efforts  to  take  Georgia  trade  from 
Georgia’s  port,  therefore,  aroused  in  many  Georgians 
economic  antagonisms  to  “Palmettodom.”  It  has  also 
been  noted  that  there  was  some  feeling  of  financial 
rivalry  between  the  states. 

Unfortunately  for  South  Carolina’s  political  aspi¬ 
rations,  as  it  later  developed,  Charleston  continued  in 

118  Andrews,  Reminiscences,  pp.  44,  45;  Longstreet’s  Georgia  Scenes 
also  contains  suggestions  of  this. 

118  For  a  careful  narration  of  the  Nullification  movement  in  Georgia 
see  the  article  of  that  title  by  E.  M.  Coulter,  in  the  Georgia  Historical 
Quarterly,  V.  No.  1,  pp.  3-39. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


59 


the  forties  the  attempt  to  wrest  the  bulk  of  the  upland 
trade  from  Savannah.  The  trade  of  the  whole  West 
seemed  ultimately  at  stake,  and  Charleston  sorely 
needed  it  to  retrieve  her  fallen  fortunes.  Savannah 
began  to  complain  in  the  late  forties  that  at  all  the 
railroad  conventions  Charleston  spoke  loud  and  long 
concerning  “the  Charleston  avenue  to  the  west — via 
the  Georgia  railroads.”  Should  not  Georgia’s  port  be 
the  chief  beneficiary  of  Georgia’s  state  railroad  that 
reached  through  the  mountains  to  the  West?120  So 
reasoned  “Old  Yamacraw,”  but  Charleston  continued 
zealously  in  her  attempts.  Her  merchants  were  active 
in  Upper  Georgia  seeking  trade  connections,  and  the 
people  there  sometimes  criticized  Savannah  for  not  be¬ 
ing  equally  energetic.  Nevertheless,  they  showed  a 
sympathy  for  their  own  port  and  urged  it  on  to  greater 
activity.  Savannah,  of  course,  was  not  inactive  in 
words.  Her  press  carried  on  a  running  controversy 
with  that  of  her  rival  as  to  the  respective  merits  of 
their  ports,  their  distance  from  the  interior,  their  ship¬ 
ping  facilities,  and  the  like.  This  sometimes  even  de¬ 
generated  into  delightful  quarrels  over  their  respective 
health  conditions,  each  claiming  that  disease  was  more 
general  and  more  fatal  with  their  rival  than  with  them¬ 
selves.121 

120  Boston  Courier,  January  1,  1850.  See  map  number  1,  p.  10.  It 
should  be  noted  in  fairness  to  Charleston  that  her  citizens  contributed 
capital  to  the  building  of  some  of  the  Georgia  roads  and  to  those  in 
Tennessee  with  which  it  was  hoped  the  Western  and  Atlantic  would 
connect.  A  recent  writer  declares  that  it  was  most  unfortunate  for 
Charleston  to  have  depended  on  its  connection  with  the  Georgia  road  to 
Tennessee  rather  than  upon  a  direct  road  to  Cincinnati,  which  Hayne 
had  desired  to  build.  See  T.  D.  Jervey,  The  Slave  Trade:  Slavery  and 
Color,  pp.  87-99. 

mDe  Bout’s  Review,  VII.  558,  559  (December,  1849)  ;  VIII.  243-245, 
(Mar.,  1850).  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  health  conditions  at  Charleston 
seem  to  have  been  better  than  those  at  Savannah.  See  Ingle,  Southern 
Sidelights,  p.  129. 


60 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  final  and  most  exasperating  effort  on  Charles¬ 
ton’s  part  to  eliminate  competition  from  Savannah 
came  in  1847,  just  as  the  political  crisis  with  the  North 
was  becoming  serious.  When  the  Georgia  legislature 
met  that  fall,  the  merchants  of  Charleston  petitioned 
that  body  for  the  incorporation  of  a  railroad  to  be  built 
from  some  point  on  the  Georgia  Central  Railroad  to 
Silver  Bluff  on  the  Savannah  River.  Such  a  line  would 
have  tapped  the  trade  coming  down  from  Atlanta  and 
Macon  to  Savannah,  a  little  above  the  latter  city,  and 
would  have  diverted  it  to  the  river,  whence  it  could  be 
carried  via  a  Carolina  road  to  Charleston.  This  pro¬ 
posal  seemed  the  last  word  in  arrogance.  The  Mil- 
ledgeville  Federal  Union,  usually  friendly  in  its  atti¬ 
tude,  now  felt  that  there  would  naturally  “be  some 
feeling  on  this  throughout  Georgia.”122  When  the 
petition  was  considered  in  the  House,  it  was  made 
the  subject  of  bitter  criticism,  the  most  intense  attack, 
according  to  the  Carolina  papers,  being  made  by  a 
representative  from  Augusta.  This  gentleman,  a  Mr. 
Miller,  thought  the  Charleston  proposal  so  unreason¬ 
able  that  “he  hoped  to  live  long  enough  to  see  an  im¬ 
passable  gulf  or  Chinese  Wall  between  Georgia  and 
South  Carolina,  that  we  may  be  forever  separated 
from  her  arrogant  medlers.”  The  Federal  Union  ques¬ 
tioned  whether  these  words  were  actually  used,  but 
adminished  Charlestonians  to  show  fair  play  if  they 
would  avoid  trouble.123  The  Charleston  Evening  News 
felt,  however,  that  “the  Georgia  press  is  now  engaged 
in  the  unworthy  pursuit  of  provoking  a  feeling  of  state 
jealousy,  if  not  the  passion  of  revenge,  for  imaginary 
wrongs,  in  the  people  of  Georgia  towards  the  people  of 

m  December  21,  1847. 

"  Ibid. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


61 


South  Carolina.  This  nursing  of  state  feud  is  un¬ 
fortunate.”  It  then  added  the  comment  of  particular 
interest  here,  that,  since  the  southern  states  were  ap¬ 
proaching  a  crisis  over  the  slavery  question,  it  was 
“especially  necessary,  now  that  the  North  is  attacking 
us,  that  the  two  republics  ...  be  friendly.”124 

The  Evening  News  might  have  said  with  greater 
truth  that  it  was  especially  vital  at  this  time  to  South 
Carolina  that  the  relations  of  the  two  “republics”  be 
friendly!  Not  only  had  the  South  Carolina  leaders  to 
contend  with  the  general  ill  feeling  towards  South 
Carolina,  but  there  was  also  the  specific  problem  of  the 
port  trade.  If  South  Carolina  were  to  secede  in  1850, 
and  Charleston  were  to  be  cut  off  as  a  port  by  federal 
interference,  while  Georgia  remained  in  the  Union, 
could  Savannah  be  trusted  not  to  take  advantage  of 
such  a  situation?  Would  she  not  secure  the  whole 
trade  at  issue?  This  aroused  some  anxiety  in  Charles¬ 
ton,  where  it  was  suspected  Savannah  favored  the 
Union  partly  for  the  express  purpose  of  securing  this 
trade.  “If  South  Carolina  secedes,”  wrote  a  famous 
Carolinian  that  year,  “the  Union  will  establish  floating 
customs  houses,  and  the  mail  will  go  direct  from  Wil¬ 
mington  [North  Carolina]  to  Savannah.  In  the  mean¬ 
time  the  whole  of  our  inland  export  trade  will  go  to 
Savannah,  and  our  kind  neighbors,  after  all  their  blus¬ 
ter,  will  be  reaping  the  full  fruits  of  their  patriotic 
moderation.”125  Other  observers  in  South  Carolina, 
such  as  Bishop  Capers  of  the  Methodist  Church,  ex¬ 
pressed  the  same  opinion.  Indeed,  the  belief  that  this 

“*  Charleston  Evening  News,  December  14,  1847. 

126  Gen.  Jas.  Hamilton,  to  the  Charleston  Mercury,  in  the  Washing¬ 
ton  Republic,  December  2,  1850. 


62 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


was  the  situation  seems  to  have  been  held  in  widely- 
separated  parts  of  the  South.126 

It  was  indeed  a  fact  that  the  economic  advan¬ 
tages  which  would  result  for  Georgia,  if  she  remained 
in  the  Union  while  “Palmettodom”  seceded,  were  at 
times  calculated  in  the  former  state.  The  Marietta 
Helicon  pointed  out  the  very  possibility  that  Hamilton 
and  Capers  had  warned  Carolina  against  and  welcomed 
the  thought  that  political  developments  might  now 
throw  all  the  Charleston  trade  to  Macon  and  Savannah. 
The  Savannah  News,  although  a  southern-rights 
paper,  granted  that  ‘'there  is  something  in  this  idea.”127 

The  economic  inferiority  of  South  Carolina  and 
the  rivalry  with  Georgia  were  matters  of  common  com¬ 
ment  in  the  newspapers  of  both  the  northern  and 
southern  states.  Decadence  in  “Palmettodom”  was  usu¬ 
ally  ascribed  to  the  aristocratic  character  of  her  society 
and  politics,  little  allowance  being  made  for  the  un¬ 
avoidable  difficulties  of  her  position.  Georgia  was 
pointed  to  as  “the  land  of  promise,”  in  contrast  with 
Carolina,  “the  land  of  protest.”128  A  New  Orleans 
paper  opined  that  “Georgia  produces  riches  and  South 
Carolina  revolutions.”129  A  Mobile  journal  believed 
that  Carolina  was  jealous  of  Georgia  and  discouraged 
by  her  superiority.130  Occasionally,  even  South  Caro¬ 
lina  editors  were  sufficiently  candid  and  courageous  to 
voice  similar  criticisms.131 

138  Jackson  (Miss.)  Flag  of  the  Union,  March  7,  1851;  Richmond 
Daily  Whig,  December  17,  1850. 

m  Savannah  News,  November  10,  1850. 

’“Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  13,  1850;  Boston  Liberator, 
August  9,  1850;  Washington  National  Intelligencer,  January  4,  1851. 
The  latter  granted  that  economic  forces  were  against  South  Carolina. 

139  Quoted  in  the  Augusta  Chronicle,  September  3,  1849. 

130  Mobile  Daily  Advertiser,  November  30,  1849. 

U1  See  Boucher,  Ante-Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Carolina,  p.  250. 


ECONOMIC  FACTORS 


63 


Georgia  papers,  of  course,  emphasized  such  opin¬ 
ions.  This  was  especially  true  of  the  Whig  jour¬ 
nals,  which  had  no  political  associations  across  the 
river,  but  it  was  not  entirely  limited  to  them.  “Caro¬ 
lina  blamed  all  her  troubles  on  the  Union,”  remarked 
the  Macon  Journal ,  “but  they  are  really  due  to  her 
undemocratic  institutions.  While  South  Carolina  has 
been  blustering,  Georgia  has  been  toiling.”132  The 
Augusta  Chronicle  agreed  and  continued  its  scathing 
criticisms  of  the  sister  state  with  more  or  less 
regularity.133  So  it  was  that  Georgia,  the  most  pro¬ 
gressive  state  of  the  lower  South,  was  also  the  most 
hostile  towards  “Palmettodom.”  This  was  an  attitude 
with  which  South  Carolina  would  have  to  reckon 
when  she  essayed  southern  leadeship  in  1850. 

132  Quoted  in  Jackson  (Miss.)  Flag  of  the  Union,  January  17,  1851. 

133  Augusta  Chronicle,  June  30,  August  27,  1849. 


CHAPTER  II 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 

In  the  course  of  his  discussion  of  wealth  and  pros¬ 
perity  in  Georgia,  Olmsted  declared  that  this  wealth 
was  confined  to  a  small  class.  A  large  part  of  the 
population,  he  believed,  lacked  both  capital  and  energy.1 
This  observation  suggests  the  importance  of  con¬ 
sidering  the  several  economic  and  social  groups  which 
entered  into  the  state’s  population.  If  wealth  was 
confined  to  the  few,  perhaps  the  political  attitude  it  de¬ 
veloped  was  also  confined  to  the  few,  and,  if  so,  what 
was  the  attitude  of  the  many?  Again,  in  considering 
the  race  problem  as  connected  with  slavery,  it  may  be 
that  different  elements  in  the  white  population  felt 
differently  towards  the  Negro  race.  Here,  too,  if  this 
were  true,  a  difference  in  social  viewpoint  might  lead 
to  a  different  political  attitude  whenever  the  race  prob¬ 
lem  was  involved  in  political  controversy.  A  brief 
discussion  of  the  social  classes  or  groups,  as  they  ex¬ 
isted  in  Georgia  in  the  forties,  is  pertinent,  therefore, 
by  way  of  background  to  the  political  narrative. 

The  outstanding  social  type  in  Georgia  and  the 
other  cotton  states  was,  of  course,  the  planter-aristo¬ 
crat.  This  class  has  been  sung  in  song  and  story, 
sometimes  belittled,  more  often  idealized.  The  first 
thing  concerning  it  that  needs  to  be  noted  here  is  the 
fact  that  it  was  a  very  small  group.  Just  how  many 
slaves  and  how  much  land  a  farmer  must  own  before 
he  became  a  “planter”  was  a  rather  uncertain  matter, 

1  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  530.  For  the  distribution  of 
wealth  in  1850,  see  Map  No.  3,  p.  22. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


65 


but  only  a  small  number  of  Georgians  were  commonly 
recognized  as  having  attained  this  distinction.  The 
census  of  1850,  for  instance,  listed  about  nineteen  hun¬ 
dred  planters  in  the  state,  as  against  some  eighty-one 
thousand  “farmers.”2  The  great  majority  of  slave¬ 
holders  in  Georgia  owned  a  small  number  of  slaves, 
more  than  one  half  of  them  owning  less  than  five,  and 
belonged  therefore  to  the  small  farmer  group.3 

The  planters,  as  the  owners  of  lands  and  slaves, 
were  obviously  the  chief  propertied  men  of  the  period. 
As  the  evolution  of  the  plantation  system  progressed, 
it  tended  to  increasing  concentration  of  such  capital  in 
their  hands.  The  process  had  gone  further  in  the  black 
belts  of  South  Carolina  and  Louisiana  than  it  had  in 
Georgia,  but  even  in  the  latter  state  a  super-planter 
type  was  already  appearing  by  1850.  General  H.  H. 
Tarver  of  Twiggs  county,  for  instance,  was  reputed 
that  year  to  be  the  owner  of  one  thousand  slaves  and 
fifty  thousand  acres  of  land,  distributed  among  ten 
plantations  in  four  counties,  and  yielding  him  a  net 
annual  income  of  about  one  hundred  and  ten  thousand 
dollars.4  The  planter  was  ordinarily  an  able  man,  to 
begin  with,  or  he  would  not  have  held  his  position  in  a 
relatively  new  country  like  Georgia.  Unless  of  a  crude 
noveaux  riche  type,  he  had  usually  had  educational  ad¬ 
vantages,  often  in  northern  colleges,  and  opportunities 
of  travel  at  home  and  abroad.  This  enabled  him  to 
give  tone  to  the  social  circle  he  dominated,  which,  as 
the  self-appointed  statistician  of  Georgia  remarked, 
“was  no  ordinary  society.”5 

1  Census  of  1850. 

*  De  Bow,  The  Interest  in  Slavery  of  the  Non-Slaveholder,  1860 
Tract  Association,  Tract  No.  5  (Charleston,  1860),  p.  3. 

4  Huntsville  (Ala.)  Advocate,  January  29,  1851. 

8  White,  Georgia  Statistics,  p.  284. 


66 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  possession  of  wealth  and  social  prestige  en¬ 
abled  the  planters  to  dominate  the  political  parties  of 
the  state  as  well  as  its  business  and  social  life.  The 
more  wealth  and  prestige  was  concentrated  in  their 
hands,  the  greater  became  the  degree  of  this  domina¬ 
tion.  In  South  Carolina  it  was  almost  complete.  In 
Georgia,  but  a  generation  removed  from  frontier  days, 
the  farmer  classes  remained  more  independent  and  the 
democratic  dogma  more  persistent  than  in  the  sister 
state.  These  had  been  real  forces  in  the  Democratic 
party  of  Georgia,  as  will  be  noted,  but  even  that  party 
was  by  1850  coming  under  the  leadership  of  the  planter 
group.  Its  leaders  in  1850,  Howell  Cobb,  Lumpkin, 
Holsey,  Towns,  McDonald,  Arnold,  and  the  rest,  were 
almost  to  a  man  planters  or  professional  men  associ¬ 
ated  with  the  planter  class.6  The  Whig  party,  of 
course,  openly  advocated  the  interests  of  the  same  class, 
though  it  often  expressed  a  politic  reverence  for  the 
traditions  of  equalitarianism. 

In  his  attitude  towards  both  economic  and  political 
affairs,  the  planter  was  conservative,  as  befitted  the 
man  of  property.  He  advocated  “sound”  financing, 
agricultural  improvements,  and,  sometimes,  the  en¬ 
couragement  of  railroads  and  industrial  corporations. 
His  attitude  towards  the  slaves  was  apt  to  be  more 
benevolent  than  that  of  the  poorer  whites.7  He  had  a 
direct  economic  interest  in  their  welfare,  and  there  was 

6  When  the  Union  party  of  1850  insinuated  that  it  contained  all  the 
“people  of  consequence,”  the  editors  of  two  of  the  most  important 
Democratic  journals,  the  Federal  Union  and  the  Savannah  Georgian, 
proceeded  to  testify  to  their  capitalistic  interests. 

7  A  remarkable  instance  of  this  benevolence  occurred  in  Georgia  at 
the  height  of  the  political  crisis  of  1850,  when  a  Savannah  planter  con¬ 
tributed  fifty  dollars  to  purchase  the  freedom  of  a  run-away  slave  held  in 
New  York  City.  Only  a  planter  would  have  dared  to  so  affront  public 
opinion  for  the  sake  of  a  Negro.  For  his  explanations  see  Savannah 
News,  October  26,  1850. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


67 


no  possibility  of  social  jealousy  between  them,  as  there 
was  between  slave  and  poor  white.  He  had  less  race 
prejudice,  therefore,  than  did  the  average  “cracker.”8 
While  ready  to  lead  in  the  defense  of  his  slave  property 
in  any  crisis,  he  was  inclined,  as  was  pointed  out  above, 
to  deprecate  any  excitement  over  the  slavery  question 
that  seemed  unnecessary  to  its  defense.  Hence,  he 
was  less  responsive  to  appeals  featuring  intense  race 
prejudice  than  was  the  poor  white  in  the  same  neigh¬ 
borhood.  For  this  reason  also,  the  Black  Belt,  which 
the  planter  dominated,  did  not  respond  to  race  appeals 
as  did  the  adjacent  country  of  the  Barrens.  This  atti¬ 
tude  was  often  misunderstood  in  the  North,  where  it 
was  assumed  that  the  “Oligarchs”  must  be  the  leaders 
of  the  “Aggressive  Slavocracy”  ;9  and  in  the  South, 
where  the  planters  were  sometimes  accused  of  being  so 
calm  and  conciliatory  as  to  be  untrue  to  their  own 
interests.10  1 

We  have  noted  that  the  great  majority  of  Georgia 
farmers  had  small  holdings  and  owned  few  slaves. 
The  eighty  thousand  or  more  members  of  this  class 
were  distributed  through  Central  and  Upper  Georgia, 
holding  small  farms  on  the  poorer  lands  of  the  Black 
Belt  or  good  lands  in  the  newer  regions  of  Southwest 
and  Cherokee  Georgia.  Most  of  the  original  settlers 
in  Central  and  Upper  Georgia  had  belonged  to  this 
class,  and  it  was  still  the  dominating  one  in  Upper 


8  Jas.  S.  Hammond  to  Louis  Tappan,  September  1,  1850,  Hammond 
MSS.  Hammond  made  this  point  very  specific  to  his  northern  corre¬ 
spondents. 

8  See  e.g.,  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  February  26,  1850. 

10  Augusta  Republic,  July  21,  1849;  Augusta  Constitutionalist,  July 
25,  1849;  Savannah  Georgian,  July  31,  1849;  Jefferson  Davis  expressed 
the  opinion  in  1850  that  the  accumulation  of  plantation  capital  in  a 
man’s  hands  was  very  apt  to  make  him  incapable  of  defending  it;  D. 
Rowland  (ed.),  Jefferson  Davis,  II.  76. 


68 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Georgia  in  this  period.  Here  they  lived  in  the  sim¬ 
plicity  of  the  frontier  farmer,  raising  the  hill  country 
fruits  and  grains,  doing  their  work  with  their  own 
hands,  and  even  making  their  own  homespun  clothes. 
They  were  thrifty  and  self-reliant,  but  at  the  same  time 
■crude,11  provincial,  and  often  illiterate.12  A  northern 
resident  in  the  state  found  Upper  Georgia  a  country 
generally  similar  to  New  England,  but  thought  the 
people  “were  all  of  one  hundred  years  behind  the  times 
in  education  and  in  all  improvements.”  Even  some 
wealthy  men  were  illiterate.13  Hundley,  with  his  more 
sympathetic  viewpoint,  also  found  the  yeomanry  of  the 
Cherokee  country  similar  to  the  New  England  farmers, 
but  thought  the  former  better  educated  upon  important 
political  topics  than  were  the  Yankees.  Although  many 
of  the  Georgians  could  not  read,  they  generally  at¬ 
tended  public  discussions  of  political  matters  at  court¬ 
house  gatherings  and  public  barbecues  and  in  this  way 
achieved  a  lively  interest  in  current  topics.  He  found 
nothing  in  the  North  which  corresponded  to  the  public 
barbecue  as  a  source  for  political  education  and  for  the 
development  and  expression  of  public  opinion.14 

It  has  also  been  observed  that  a  majority  of  the 
Georgia  farmers  owned  but  a  small  number  of  slaves. 
De  Bow  calculated,  upon  the  basis  of  the  Census  of 
1850,  that  about  one  half  of  the  population  of  the  cot¬ 
ton  states,  exclusive  of  the  cities,  belonged  to  slave¬ 
holding  families,  but  that  of  these  about  one  half 

u  For  description  of  the  customs  and  amusements  of  the  Cherokee 
country,  see  White,  Georgia  Statistics,  p.  439 ;  Longstreet,  Georgia 
Scenes,  pp.  113-117. 

u  See  Map  No.  4,  p.  24,  for  the  extent  of  illiteracy  in  the  several 
sections  of  the  state. 

13  Emily  Burke,  Reminiscences  of  Georgia,  p.  21. 

“Hundley,  Social  Relations  in  Our  Southern  States,  p.  207. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


69 


owned  less  than  five  slaves.15  In  Central  Georgia 
many  small  farmers  owned  from  one  to  fifteen  slaves, 
but  in  Upper  Georgia  the  majority  owned  none  at  all. 
Where  a  few  were  owned,  the  masters  worked  by  their 
side  in  the  fields.16  Here,  therefore,  where  there  was 
a  very  small  Negro  population,  the  slave  was  generally 
less  restricted  in  his  relations  with  the  whites  than  was 
the  case  in  the  Black  Belt.17  The  Negroes  were  not 
present  in  sufficient  numbers  in  the  hills  to  offer  any 
threat  of  economic  competition  with  the  poor  whites, 
nor  did  the  latter  have  to  fear  any  race  problem  in  case 
of  abolition.  Hence  it  is  probable  that  the  poor  moun¬ 
taineer,  while  he  had  no  love  for  Negroes,  was  indiff¬ 
erent  to  the  race  problem  which  was  forced  upon  the 
poor  whites  on  the  borders  of  the  Black  Belt.  This 
suggests  the  possibility  that  there  was  a  less  intense 
racial  consciousness  in  the  hill  country  than  with  the 
poor  whites  on  the  edge  of  the  Black  Belt.  If  this  were 
true,  it  would  imply  less  response  to  political  appeals 
featuring  the  race  problem  than  would  have  been  ac¬ 
corded  such  appeals  in  or  near  the  plantation  districts. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  “southern  rights”  appeal  of 
1850  did  involve  race  appeal,  and  the  strongest  re¬ 
sponse  came  from  the  poor  farmers  on  the  edge  of  the 
Black  Belt,  while  it  was  largely  ignored  by  the  poor 
farmers  in  the  hill  country.18 

The  small  farmers  of  Central  Georgia,  however, 
were  in  a  different  position  from  those  of  Upper 

15  De  Bow,  The  Interest  in  Slavery  of  the  Non-Slaveholder,  p.  3.  For 
more  specific  estimates  in  the  case  of  Georgia  see  R.  P.  Brooks,  The 
Agrarian  Revolution  in  Georgia,  p.  85. 

16  See  Alfred  H.  Stone,  “Free  Contract  Labor  in  the  Ante-Bellum 
South,”  The  South  in  the  Building  of  the  Nation,  V.  143. 

17  Burke,  op.  cit.,  p.  21 ;  Hundley,  op.  cit.,  pp.  194,  195.  This,  of 
course,  is  the  rule  in  race  relationships.  See  Stone,  American  Race 
Problem,  p.  13. 

18  See  Map  No.  7,  p.  320. 


70 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Georgia.  Many  of  the  former  owned  a  few  slaves 
and  hoped  to  own  more,  while  those  who  did  not  proba¬ 
bly  hoped  to  do  so  in  the  future.  This  tended  to 
identify  the  interests  of  the  small  slaveholder  with 
those  of  the  large,  to  the  advantage  of  the  latter.  The 
poor  farmer  of  the  Black  Belt  also  feared  the  racial 
consequences  of  emancipation,  and  this  intensified  his 
proslavery  views.  He  was  carefully  reminded  by  pro¬ 
slavery  writers  that  while  the  planter  might  use  accu¬ 
mulated  capital  to  escape  a  country  turned  over  to  free 
Negroes,  the  poor  farmer  would  have  to  stay  and  face 
the  freedmen.19 

The  attitude  of  the  Cherokee  farmers  towards 
slavery  is  difficult  to  determine.  It  has  already  been 
suggested  that  they  probably  felt  less  intensely  on  the 
race  question  than  the  farmers  in  the  lowlands,  but 
what  was  their  attitude  towards  the  vested  interests  of 
the  slaveholders?  The  corresponding  class  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  Tennessee,  and  the  Carolinas,  was  usually  op¬ 
posed  to  these  interests.  One  would  expect,  a  priori,  a 
similar  attitude  on  the  part  of  the  mountain  people  of 
Georgia.  Cherokee  and  Southwest  Georgia,  more¬ 
over,  were  relatively  newly  settled  sections,  and  this 
meant  that  there  had  been  less  time  for  economic  and 
social  stratification  than  had  been  the  case  in  other 
states.  Farmers  in  such  new  country  were  apt  to  be 
more  hopeful  and  ambitious  and  more  independent  of 
planter  domination.  Helper,  in  his  protest  against  the 
slaveocracy,  declared  that  “in  few  other  states  are  the 
non-slaveholders  so  little  under  the  dominance  of  the 
oligarchy  as  in  Georgia.”20  This,  under  some  circum- 

18  De  Bow,  op.  cit.,  pp.  11,  12.  For  northern  interpretation  of  the 
small  farmers’  attitude,  see  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  26. 
1850. 

20  Helper,  Impending  Crisis,  Compendium,  p.  111. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


71 


stances,  might  have  meant  more  open  protest  against 
the  vested  interests  than  would  have  been  expected 
from  the  subordinated  poor  farmers  of  the  Carolinas. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  evidence  in  the  case  is  slight, 
usually  indirect,  and  difficult  to  secure.  It  is  slight  be¬ 
cause  the  poor  farmers  were  not  an  articulate  class.21 
It  is  indirect  for  the  same  reason.  What  is  known 
about  them  is  largely  what  the  upper  classes  thought 
fit  to  print  concerning  them,  and  this  depended  upon 
political  expediency. 

There  is  some  evidence  that  the  up-country  non¬ 
slaveholders’  dislike  for  the  vested  interests  of  the 
planters  was  a  real  force  in  1850.  When  the  po¬ 
litical  crisis  over  slavery  extension  arose  in  the  late 
forties,  the  Cherokee  Georgians  were  apt  to  associate 
the  planter  class  with  the  slavery-extension  group — 
which  of  course  was  just  the  reverse  of  the  truth22 — 
and,  therefore,  opposed  the  extension  movement  to  the 
extent  of  their  latent  dislike  for  that  class.  As  this 
played  into  the  hands  of  the  planter  leaders  of  both 
old  parties,  who  led  the  compromising  Union  party, 
these  leaders  had  no  protest  to  make,  even  though  the 
mountaineers  talked  heresy  against  the  slaveocracy. 
The  protest  came  from  the  Southern  Rights  party, 
which  claimed  most  loudly  to  speak  for  planter  inter¬ 
ests  and  which  the  mountaineers  therefore  opposed. 

Some  southern-rights  leaders  believed  the  class 
feeling  against  the  slave  owners  was  the  chief  obstacle 
in  the  cotton  states  to  the  extensionist  movement.  Gov¬ 
ernor  Mosely  of  Florida,  writing  from  Tallahassee, 
whence  he  could  presumably  survey  conditions  in 

21  Small  town  newspapers  of  Upper  Georgia,  which  may  have  re¬ 
flected  small  farmer  opinion,  have  usually  been  lost. 

22  Always  excepting  South  Carolina 


72 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


nearby  Georgia,  Alabama,  and  Florida,  declared  that 
“the  chief  obstacle  to  unity  against  the  Wilmot  Pro¬ 
viso  was  the  belief  that  it  tended  to  promote  the 
prospective  welfare  of  the  poor  or  non-slaveholding 
whites.”23  In  Georgia  the  protest  of  the  nonslave¬ 
holding  whites  against  slavery  extension  varied  from 
statements  of  polite  indifference  to  energetic  objections 
to  fighting  the  slaveholders’  battles.  The  more  con¬ 
servative  people  of  Upper  Georgia,  where  the  bulk  of 
the  population  belonged  to  the  Democratic  party, 
wanted  to  know  why  they  should  join  a  movement  to 
protect  the  owners  of  Negroes,  when  they  owned  none 
themselves.24 

When  the  critical  year  of  struggle  between  the 
Southern-rights  and  Union  parties  was  reached,  Union 
leaders  did  not  hesitate  to  proclaim  to  Cherokee  farm¬ 
ers  that  they  had  no  interest  in  the  slavery  struggle; 
that  the  extensionists  were  working  for  the  selfish 
interests  of  the  planter  class ;  and  that  if  this  led  to  a 
conflict  with  the  North,  the  small  farmers,  who  had  no 
interest  in  the  issue,  “would  have  to  fight  the  battles  of 
the  lordly  slaveholders.”25  The  extensionist  group 
protested  vehemently  about  this  heresy  against  the 
peculiar  institution,  on  the  ground  that  by  dividing 
southerners  it  would  “play  right  into  the  hands  of  the 
abolitionists,”  the  common  enemy.  As  a  matter  of  fact, 
as  was  observed,  it  played  into  the  hands  of  the  planters 
themselves,  who,  opposed  to  slavery  extension  and  to 
anything  threatening  turmoil,  were  largely  associated 
with  the  non-extension  Union  party.  They  gladly  co- 

23  Mosely  to  Seabrook,  May  18,  1849,  Seabrook  MSS. 

**  W.  H.  Hull  to  Howell  Cobb,  January  26,  1849,  “Toombs,  Stephens, 
and  Cobb  Correspondence,”  American  Historical  Association  Annual  Re¬ 
port,  1911,  II.  142. 

“ Federal  Union,  April  9,  1850. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


73 


operated  with  the  mountaineers  against  the  Southern- 
rights,  extension-at-any-price  party,  and  were  not 
over  critical  of  the  motives  which  brought  them  this 
up-country  support. 

A  certain  number  of  Georgia  whites,  who  were 
neither  planters  nor  farmers,  were  the  residents  of  the 
larger  towns.  Here  a  small  group  of  merchants  and 
professional  men  were  associated  with  the  planters  in 
business  and  society  and  in  their  general  interests  and 
point  of  view.26  Smaller  merchants  and  professional 
men  tended  to  share  the  economic  and  social  status  of 
the  small  farmers,  and  their  views  upon  slavery  were 
apt  to  be  those  of  the  class  into  which  they  hoped  to 
rise.  Some  of  the  small  merchants  and  professional 
men,  however — particularly  the  “ginger-pop  lawyers” 
— tended  to  favor  secession.  They  read  the  local  ex¬ 
tremist  papers  and  did  not  partake  of  the  conserva¬ 
tism  that  comes  with  the  possession  of  wealth.27 

The  attitude  of  Georgia  mechanics  towards  slavery 
and  political  matters  probably  did  not  vary  much  from 
that  of  the  small  farmers  in  the  same  section  of  the 
state.  Occasionally,  however,  they  came  into  competi¬ 
tion  with  slave  labor,  in  which  cases  they  were  apt  to 
become  antagonistic  to  the  institution.28  Northern  ob¬ 
servers  often  claimed  that  this  was  the  case.29  There 
is  little  evidence  showing  any  general  antagonism, 
however,  on  the  part  of  native  mechanics  against 
slavery,  though  they  opposed  opening  their  trades  to 

28  Dr.  Richard  Arnold,  a  leading  Democrat  of  Savannah,  emphasized 
his  statement  that  all  Savannah  people  of  “respectability,”  with  the 
exception  of  only  one  family,  were  conservative  Unionists  in  1850  ; 
Arnold  to  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold  MSS. 

27  See  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  26,  1850. 

28  For  an  interesting  case  of  this  kind  in  newspaper  work,  see  the 
Savannah  Georgian,  September  14,  1850. 

29  Parsons,  Tour  Among  the  Planters,  p.  17. 


74 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Negroes.30  As  for  the  white  laborers,  many  of  them 
were  not  native  Georgians.  Those  who  were  natives 
were  an  unimportant  and  inarticulate  class. 

At  the  bottom  of  the  social  and  economic  scale 
among  the  whites  were  the  “poor  white  trash”  of  the 
Pine  Barrens  area.  The  term  “cracker”  was  some¬ 
times  applied  in  Georgia  to  poor  and  middle-class 
farmers  in  almost  any  part  of  the  state,  though  to  the 
northern  mind  it  probably  connoted  chiefly  the  poorer 
type.  Within  the  state,  the  latter  were  more  distinc¬ 
tively  referred  to  as  the  “Piney-Woods  People,”  the 
“Sand  Hillers,”  the  “Clay  Eaters,”  and  like  euphe¬ 
mistic  terms.  This  class  merits  especial  attention, 
both  because  it  had  some  political  significance  in  a  state 
where  all  men  could  vote  and  because  it  was  itself  the 
subject  of  much  controversy  involving  the  general 
question  of  slavery.  It  should  not  be  confused,  as  is 
sometimes  done,  with  the  better  type  of  poor  farmers 
in  the  hills.31 

The  typical  “Piney-Woods  People”  lived  upon  small 
clearings  in  pine  districts,  or  poor,  worn-out  soils  upon 
which  they  planted  a  little  corn,  cotton  or  garden  truck. 
A  few  pigs  and  chickens  ran  half  wild  about  the  place. 
From  such  sources  they  supplied  their  immediate  wants 
in  food,  while  the  women  spun  the  cotton  into  the  cloth 
necessary  for  clothing.  For  shelter  they  depended 
upon  one-room  shacks,  which  were  of  the  crudest  char¬ 
acter  within  doors  and  without.  The  men  eked  out 
their  miserable  existence  by  hunting  and  fishing  and 
perhaps  pilfering  or  illicit  trading  with  the  slaves  of 
nearby  plantations.  Occasionally  they  would  ride  into 

30  See  Russel,  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism,  pp.  53,  219. 

31  This  confusion  persists  in  recent  writing.  See,  e.g.,  Russel, 
Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism,  p.  51. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


75 


the  nearest  town  in  an  ox-cart,  if  they  owned  one,  to 
barter  poultry  or  a  single  bale  of  cotton  for  a  few 
necessary  articles  of  trade.  They  were  neither  pro¬ 
prietors  nor  laborers,  but  rather  squatters  upon  the  soil 
that  no  one  else  would  take.  Lack  of  any  free  capital 
and  lack  of  energy  made  it  impossible  for  them  to 
secure  any  better  holdings. 

They  were  an  independent  and  taciturn  people,  but 
necessarily  led  a  life  that  was  most  primitive  in  charac¬ 
ter.  They  were  usually  utterly  ignorant  and  sometimes 
depraved.32  Drunkenness  was  general  and  often  ex¬ 
treme,  as  they  indulged  “in  the  vilest  rot-gut  rather 
than  the  honest  apple-brandy  of  the  yeomen.”  They 
were  also  apt  to  be  weak  and  sickly  as  well  as  lazy. 
Indeed,  from  what  is  now  known  in  medical  science,  it 
would  seem  that  some  of  their  proverbial  “laziness” 
was  due  to  chronic  infection  with  hook-worm  or  other 
diseases  which  were  endemic  in  the  community.33 

As  a  result  of  all  these  characteristics,  the  “poor 
white  trash”  were  despised  by  slaves  as  well  as  by  the 
more  energetic  and  successful  whites.  The  poor 
whites  returned  the  dislike  of  the  slaves  with  interest. 
Their  very  inferiority  made  them  the  more  jealous  of 
their  one  claim  to  distinction ;  that  is,  their  white  blood. 

32  For  graphic  representation  of  poverty  and  ignorance  in  the  Pine 
Barrens,  see  Maps  3  and  4,  pp.  22,  24. 

83  For  contemporary  descriptions  of  this  class  from  the  northern 
viewpoint,  see,  Weston,  The  Progress  of  Slavery,  pp.  39-42 ;  and  Poor 
Whites,  passim;  Olmsted,  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  pp.  413, 
415,  545,  507,  535-540;  and  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  II.  385;  Burke, 
Reminiscences,  pp.  205-209.  For  the  southern  view,  see  De  Bow,  Eco¬ 
nomic  Resources  of  the  Southern  States,  II.  106;  Governor  Hammond’s 
Address  to  the  South  Carolina  Institute,  in  De  Bow’s  Review,  VIII.  519; 
Andrews,  Reminiscences,  p.  43 ;  Hundley,  Social  Relations  in  Our  South¬ 
ern  States,  pp.  255-269;  and  the  quotations  from  Augusta  newspapers 
given  by  Phillips  in  Plantation  and  Frontier  Documents,  II.  167  (Docu¬ 
mentary  History  of  American  Industrial  Society.)  For  comment  on  the 
poor  whites  and  hookworm  disease  see  P.  H.  Buck,  “Poor  Whites  of  the 
Old  South,”  American  Historical  Review,  XXXI.  45,  46. 


76 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


They  were,  therefore,  the  class  which  most  dis¬ 
liked  the  Negro,  which  was  probably  most  race-con¬ 
scious,  and  which  was  most  responsive  to  any  political 
appeal  featuring  the  race  problem.  This  was  especially 
true  of  those  who  lived  on  the  edge  of  the  plantation 
areas  and  who  there  came  into  contact  with  the  Ne¬ 
groes.  Conditions  in  this  area  were  indeed  ideal  for 
arousing  race  feeling,  as  the  Negroes  were  too  near 
and  numerous  to  permit  of  the  indifference  of  the 
mountains,  and  at  the  same  time  not  sufficiently  num¬ 
erous  to  permit  of  the  tolerance  of  the  planter-domi¬ 
nated  Black  Belt.  Speaking  of  the  poor  whites  across 
the  river  in  South  Carolina,  James  H.  Hammond  de¬ 
clared  they  “felt  the  distinction  of  race  and  color  more 
sensibly  than  any  other  and  if  emancipation  could  take 
place  would  be  the  deadliest  enemy  of  the  free  negro. 
The  negroes,  on  the  other  hand,  fear  and  hate  the 
[poor]  whites.”34 

In  addition  to  being  anti-Negro  in  feeling,  the 
“Clay-Eater”  was  ignorant  and  hence  especially  re¬ 
sponsive  to  appeals  involving  provincial  prejudices. 
His  dislike  for  the  Yankee  and  the  North  could,  of 
course,  be  stimulated  with  much  greater  ease  than 
could  any  such  feeling  a  planter  might  possess.35  This 
responsiveness  to  race  and  sectional  prejudice  probably 
explains  the  fact  noted  that,  in  the  test  of  1850,  the 
people  on  the  edge  of  the  Pine  Barrens  supported  the 
southern-rights  movement  more  generally  than  did 
those  of  any  other  section  of  the  state.36 

34  Hammond  to  Louis  Tappan,  September  1,  1850,  Hammond  MSS. 
See  also,  for  Georgia,  the  Savannah  Republican,  November  21,  1850,  and 
Jan.  4,  1851;  Fanny  Kemble’s  Journal,  p.  146;  Oneida  (N.  Y.)  Herald  in 
the  Federal  Union,  Oct.  30,  1849;  Weston,  Progress  of  Slavery,  p.  40. 

35  This  was  the  opinion  of  some  critical  northern  observers.  See 
the  Oneida  (N.  Y.)  Herald,  in  the  Federal  Union,  Oct.  30,  1849; 
Weston,  The  Progress  of  Slavery,  p.  40. 

3,1  See  Map  No.  7,  p.  320. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


77 


It  must  be  remembered,  of  course,  that  the  poor 
white  population  of  the  Barrens  was  small  in  relation 
to  that  of  the  state  as  a  whole.  In  1850  it  did  not  much 
exceed  forty  thousand  out  of  a  total  white  population 
of  over  five  hundred  thousand.  Even  this  small  esti¬ 
mate  makes  no  allowance  for  the  presence  of  a  few 
planters  and  other  superior  individuals  in  the  Pine 
Barrens  area.  Nevertheless,  the  class  was  large  enough 
and  obviously  unfortunate  enough  to  attract  consider¬ 
able  attention  from  both  northern  and  southern  ob¬ 
servers.  The  former  believed  that  the  class  was  the 
direct  result  of  the  slave  system.  It  was  held  that  the 
planters  monopolized  good  lands,  drove  the  poor  whites 
to  the  worthless  tracts,  and  then  did  not  even  permit 
them  to  escape  from  these  to  work  as  laborers.  For 
labor  was  given  a  race  stigma,  and  most  of  the  demand 
for  it  was  already  supplied  by  the  slaves.  Thus  there 
was  no  place  for  the  poor  whites  in  the  dominant  eco¬ 
nomic  system  of  the  cotton  states.  They  were  a  class 
without  any  economic  raison  d’etre  and,  as  such,  pre¬ 
destined  to  become  the  parasites  and  pariahs  of  south¬ 
ern  society.  Could  there  be  any  more  damning  indict¬ 
ment  of  slavery  than  this,  its  effect  upon  the  southern 
whites  themselves?  So  ran  the  northern  indictment.37 

Georgia  observers  were  quite  read)7  to  admit  the 
degradation  of  this  people,  but  felt  the  northern  ex¬ 
planation  was  partial  and  partisan  in  character. 
Northerners  blamed  everything  upon  environmental 

37  J.  E.  Cairnes,  The  Slave  Power,  pp.  78,  79.  This  was  also  the 
thesis  of  Helper  and  many  other  northern  and  southern  critics  of  the 
institution.  Cf.  Phillips,  American  Negro  Slavery,  p.  355.  For  an 
especially  forceful  expression,  see  Weston,  Progress  of  Slavery,  pp. 
40-42.  For  a  modern  northern  expression,  which  makes  no  allowance  for 
other  factors,  see  Hammond,  The  Cotton  Industry,  pp.  62,  63.  Northern 
critics  who  blamed  all  upon  slavery  were  blissfully  indifferent  to  the  fact 
that  a  similar  “poor  white”  class  existed  in  some  northern  states,  e.g., 
the  “Pineys”  of  New  Jersey. 


78 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


influences  and  ignored  some  potent  hereditary  forces. 
The  “Piney-Woods  People,”  Georgians  held,  were 
largely  the  descendants  of  Oglethorpe’s  paupers  and 
indentured  servants,  or  of  similar  people  from  the 
Barrens  of  South  Carolina.  They  had  originally  been 
an  inferior  people  and  had  passed  their  failings  on  to 
their  descendants.  Only  this  hereditary  inferiority 
could  explain  their  failure  to  take  better  lands  in  the 
first  place  or  to  leave  these  lands,  once  they  were  ex¬ 
hausted,  to  take  better  ones  on  the  easy  terms  offered 
early  in  the  century. 

It  was  even  claimed  by  some  extreme  proslavery 
writers  that  this  lowly  position  of  the  poor  whites,  due 
to  hereditary  influences,  had  been  improved  by  the 
existence  of  slavery  in  their  environment.  The  planter, 
it  was  claimed,  was  forced  to  treat  all  whites  well  in 
the  presence  of  the  Negroes,  in  order  that  the  latter 
might  not  forget  their  position  of  racial  inferiority. 
In  this  way  the  slave  system  dignified  the  white  race  as 
such,  and  this  dignity  was  shared  by  the  poorest  whites 
as  well  as  by  the  wealthy.38 

The  several  classes  which  have  now  been  noted 
were  those  distinguishable  by  social  and  economic  cri¬ 
teria.  There  were  three  other  groups  in  the  state  to 
be  distinguished  by  their  geographical  origins,  each  of 
which  possessed  some  political  significance.  These 
were  the  South  Carolinians,  the  “Yankees,”  and  the 
European  immigrants. 

South  Carolinians  had  moved  over  into  Georgia 
throughout  the  first  half  of  the  century.  The  economic 

38  For  an  elaborate  argument  to  this  effect,  see  B  S.  Green’s  preface 
to  his  translation  of  A.  G.  de  Cassagnac,  History  of  the  Working  and 
Burgher  Classes.  (Philadelphia,  1872).  This  preface  is  printed  as  a 
separate  pamphlet,  a  copy  of  which  is  in  possession  of  the  Georgia 
Historical  Society.  Cf.  Rowland,  Jefferson  Davis,  II.  73,  74. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


79 


^decadence  of  the  former  state,  already  referred  to,  had 
increased  this  tendency.  They  had  been  of  all  classes, 
planters  with  their  slaves,  poor  whites  from  the  Bar¬ 
rens,  and  merchants  or  professional  men  from  the 
towns.  They  seem  usually  to  have  settled  in  Georgia 
in  a  region  or  town  generally  similar  to  that  from 
which  they  came.  Many  of  those  living  in  Georgia  in 
1850  had  been  adults  at  the  time  of  immigration,  and 
therefore  tended  to  maintain  in  Georgia  the  political 
attitude  towards  the  slavery  question  and  the  Union 
which  was  peculiar  to  their  old  home.  This  was  of 
some  significance,  for,  as  newspaper  editors,  lawyers, 
merchants  and  politicians,  they  helped  to  lead  the 
southern-rights  movement  in  Georgia  towards  the 
secessionist  principles  of  South  Carolina.  It  is  im¬ 
possible  to  estimate  the  numbers  of  this  element  in  the 
state,  but  it  was  taken  for  granted  at  the  time  that  there 
were  “thousands  of  them.”39 

Meanwhile,  an  equally  important  immigration  was 
reaching  the  state  during  the  forties  from  the  North. 
At  that  period,  of  course,  the  greater  number  of  north¬ 
erners  emigrating  to  new  country  went  west  along 
their  own  parallels  of  latitude  in  search  of  land.  A 
smaller  number,  however,  saw  in  the  cotton  states, 
especially  in  Georgia,  opportunities  for  merchants, 
tradespeople,  and  professional  men.  There  were  me¬ 
chanics  and  engineers  in  the  North,  and  they  were 
needed  for  the  new  railroads  and  factories  in  Georgia. 
There  were  school  teachers,  both  men  and  women  in 
plenty,  and  these  were  needed  for  the  new  schools  in 
Georgia.  Finally,  there  were  opportunities  for  trade 
which  the  shrewd  and  energetic  Yankee  thought  he 

39  Savannah  Georgian,  September  17,  1849. 


80 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


could  exploit  more  effectively  than  could  some  of  the 
natives.  These  were  the  opportunities  that  attracted 
most  of  the  northerners,  although  a  few  purchased 
land,  and  others  married  heiresses  to  the  same.  Those 
who  held  land  usually  merged  with  the  native  planter 
class.  But  the  bulk,  coming  for  business  or  profes¬ 
sional  reasons,  were  apt  to  concentrate  in  the  towns,40 
where  this  very  fact  in  turn  tended  to  preserve  their 
northern  characteristics  and  point  of  view.  Some 
came  as  the  representatives  of  business  houses  in  the 
North.  Others  arrived  with  letters  from  such  firms 
recommending  their  introduction  to  business  oppor¬ 
tunities  or  their  employment  as  clerks.  Some  “came 
down  as  mere  peddlers  but  later  set  up  as  store¬ 
keepers  and  merchants.”41  Hand  in  hand  with  these 
came  the  skilled  mechanics.  Even  in  the  thirties,  the 
Yankees  had  found  opportunities  in  special  occupations 
requiring  training  and  skill.  Olmsted  notes  the  early 
appearance  of  New  England  fishermen  off  the  coast, 
and  by  1833  Maine  lumbermen  had  found  it  profitable 
to  work  the  pine  districts.42  Journeymen  printers 
came  down  to  work  upon  the  presses  in  Savannah  and 
perhaps  elsewhere.43  But  the  chief  demand  for  north¬ 
ern  mechanical  skill  arose  in  connection  with  the  rail¬ 
roads  and  the  new  factories. 

It  was  natural  that  few  Georgians  in  the  early 
forties  had  received  any  training  as  engineers,  superin¬ 
tendents,  or  mechanics  in  railroad  and  cotton  mill  in¬ 
dustries.  Hence,  during  that  decade,  most  of  the 

40  Individual  Yankees,  however,  established  themselves  even  in  the 
hill  country.  See  C.  Lanman,  Letters  from  the  Alleghaney  Mountains 
(1849),  p.  56. 

41  [A.  B.  Longstreet],  Letters  from  Georgia  to  Massachusetts,  pp. 
20,  21. 

42 Niles’  Register,  XLVII.  55,  September  27,  1834. 

43  Savannah  Georgian,  September  14,  1850. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


81 


Georgia  factories  employed  superintendents  and  me¬ 
chanics  who  had  received  their  training  back  home 
in  New  England.  In  like  manner,  northerners  were 
employed  upon  the  railroads.44  Occasionally  northern 
capitalists  came  down  to  look  after  their  investments 
in  new  factories,  though  this  type  was  apt  to  desire  to 
“get  rich  c)uick”  and  to  retire — probably  to  the  North.45 
At  first  a  few  factory  operatives  also  arrived,  but 
there  was  no  need  for  them.  Olmsted  states  that 
“New  England  factory  girls  were  occasionally  induced 
to  come  to  the  Georgia  mills  but  soon  left  because  of 
the  degraded  position  of  laborers.”46  The  native  poor 
whites  could  supply  all  the  operatives  desired. 

Not  a  few  Yankees  came  to  the  state  to  seek  em¬ 
ployment  in  educational  work.  The  increasing  pros¬ 
perity  towards  the  end  of  the  fifth  decade  of  the 
century  led  to  efiforts  championed  by  churches  and 
newspapers  to  reform  the  educational  system.47  It  was 
a  period  of  considerable  interest  in  education,  and 
opportunities  for  teaching  in  new  schools  increased. 
These  opportunities  were  seized  upon  by  northern 
teachers,  who  had  received  their  training  in  states 
where  the  public  school  movement  was  already  well 
under  way.  As  was  the  case  with  the  Yankee  me¬ 
chanics,  they  were  attracted  especially  to  the  more  pro¬ 
gressive  towns,  where  they  were  most  in  demand.  Here 
New  England  schoolmasters  or  “schoolmarms”  acted 

44  For  contemporary  notices  of  such  employment,  see  the  Milledge- 
ville  Recorder,  February  25,  1850 ;  Savannah  Republican,  March  25,  and 
May  4,  1850;  Augusta  Chronicle,  August  17,  1849;  Cf.  also,  Dc  Bow’s 
Reviezv,  XI.  311;  Hundley,  Social  Relations  in  Our  Southern  States,  p. 
118;  Paine,  Six  Years  in  a  Georgia  Prison,  p.  14;  etc. 

45  De  Bow’s  Review,  VI.  293. 

46  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  536. 

47  The  Georgia  papers  of  the  period,  especially  the  Whig,  are  full  of 
urgent  appeals  for  educational  reform.  For  the  detailed  educational 
history  of  the  decade,  see  Jones,  Education  in  Georgia,  passim. 


82 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


as  tutors  in  the  better  families  or  taught  in  the 
“Female  Colleges”  and  other  schools  of  secondary 
grade. 

How  important  an  element  were  the  Yankees  in 
the  Georgia  towns,  and  what  was  their  attitude  towards 
the  political  problems  of  the  period?  Northern  ob¬ 
servers  were  inclined  to  claim  all  things  for  them. 
Parsons  observed  that  “many  if  not  most  of  the  suc¬ 
cessful  business  and  professional  men  in  Georgia 
were  from  the  North.”48  Olmsted  went  further  and 
claimed  that  “the  better  class,  which  gives  Georgia  its 
reputation  for  prosperity  is  very  largely  composed  and 
directed  in  enterprise  by  persons  born  in  the  free 
states.  The  number  of  these,  proportionate  to  all  the 
white  population,  is  much  greater  than  in  any  other 
Southern  State.”49  Olmsted,  of  course,  was  thinking 
of  industrial  and  mercantile  prosperity  rather  than  of 
the  basic  agricultural  interests.  Yet  there  is  no  ques¬ 
tion  that  industrial  and  trade  prosperity  was  a  most 
important  factor  in  creating  Georgia’s  excellent  busi¬ 
ness  reputation,  and  that  the  energy  of  northern  men 
in  these  lines  contributed  largely  to  their  success. 
There  is  southern  as  well  as  northern  testimony  to  this 
effect.  Hundley  stated  that  the  Yankees  formed  “no 
inconsiderable  part  of  the  southern  middle  classes,” 
and  he  testified  to  their  energy  and  ability.50  The  edi¬ 
tor  of  one  of  the  strongest  southern-rights  papers  in 
Georgia  granted  that  “most  of  the  teachers  who  are 
able  have  come  from  the  North.”51 

48  Tour  among  the  Planters,  p.  26. 

49  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  pp.  530,  536. 

60  Hundley,  op.  cit..  p.  104;  “The  older,  steadier  business  men  were 
Yankees”  comments  a  Georgia  observer;  L.  B.  Wylie,  Memoirs  of  Judge 
Richard  H.  Clark,  p.  4. 

61  Milledgeville  Federal  Union,  August  10,  1847. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


83 


Georgians,  of  course,  would  not  have  agreed  with 
Olmsted’s  sweeping  claim  about  the  “better  class”  in 
the  state,  but  the  South  Carolinians,  who  most  disliked 
the  Yankees,  insisted  that  the  chief  business  towns  of 
Georgia  were  largely  populated  and  controlled  by  them. 
In  1852,  for  instance,  a  Charleston  gentleman  traveling 
through  the  eastern  part  of  the  state  found  Augusta 
“nothing  but  a  northern  city  on  southern  soil.”  Upon 
reaching  Savannah,  he  found  that  here  too  “northern 
influence  is  very  potent,”  though  not  quite  so  much  so 
as  in  Augusta.52  Georgians  sometimes  joined  in  this 
view.  An  up-country  man  even  urged  that  trade  be 
sent  from  there  to  Charleston  rather  than  to  Savannah, 
since  the  former  town  “was  the  only  Southern  city  on 
the  entire  coast.  Savannah  and  New  Orleans  are  off¬ 
shoots  from  Yankeedom.”53  Columbus,  the  second 
chief  manufacturing  town,  also  had  some  Yankee 
residents,  though  there  are  no  reports  of  such  large 
numbers  as  in  Savannah  and  Augusta.  It  is  probably 
not  without  significance  in  this  connection  to  recall  that 
Columbus  was  never  so  inclined  to  compromise  with 
the  North  during  the  slavery  controversy  as  was 
Augusta.  Northerners  who  lived  in  the  latter  city  in 
the  early  fifties  recall  it  as  one  where  most  of  the  stores 
and  trades  were  handled  by  northern  people.  They 
rarely  met  native  Georgians,  save  in  the  churches, 
where  they  came  into  formal  contact  with  plantation 
people  from  the  surrounding  country.54 

62  Incidents  of  a  Journey  from  Abbeville,  South  Carolina,  to  Ocala 
Florida  (Edgefield,  South  Carolina,  1852),  pp.  5,  11.  A  Georgia  ob¬ 
server,  looking  back  after  fifty  years,  recalled  no  less  than  seventeen 
merchants  of  Savannah  “and  many  others,”  who  were  Yankees.  See  L. 
B.  Wylie,  Memoirs  of  Judge  Richard  H.  Clark,  p.  4. 

53  Marietta  (Ga.)  Cherokee  Advocate,  in  Savannah  Republican,  Feb¬ 
ruary  15,  1851. 

64  Mrs.  R.  H.  (Julia)  Woodward,  letter  to  author,  Guilford,  Con¬ 
necticut,  September  10,  1923. 


84 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


One  activity  of  this  group  is  of  particular  interest 
here ;  namely,  the  connection  of  northern  men  with  the 
newspapers  of  Georgia.  Three  of  the  most  important 
conservative  Whig  papers  of  the  state,  the  Macon 
Journal,  the  Augusta  Chronicle,  and  the  Savannah  Re¬ 
publican ,  had  in  1850  editors  of  northern  origin.  Some 
minor  papers,  like  the  Macon  Citizen  and  the  Marietta 
Helicon,  also  had  editors  of  this  class.  Men  like  Dr. 
Daniel  Lee  of  the  Chronicle  and  J.  L.  Locke  of  the 
Republican  were  especially  influential.  It  may  be  of 
some  significance  that  these  journals  were  generally 
conservative  during  the  political  controversy  with  the 
North.  On  the  other  hand,  several  of  the  Democratic 
journals,  notably  the  Milledgeville  Federal  Union  and 
the  Columbus  Times,  had  editors  of  South  Carolina 
origin,  and  it  may  be  equally  suggestive  that  these 
papers  led  in  the  southern-rights  movement.  So  well 
placed  in  such  positions,  indeed,  were  the  representa¬ 
tives  of  these  two  groups,  that  the  Georgia  press  served 
as  an  arena  in  which  Yankees  and  Carolinians  did 
battle  for  their  respective  views.  What  was  true  of 
the  press,  moreover,  was  true  in  some  measure  of  other 
urban  institutions.  The  Georgia  towns  were  the  meet¬ 
ing  ground  of  “Yankey-Land”  and  “Palmettodom.” 

The  degree  to  which  the  presence  of  northern  edi¬ 
tors  was  of  political  significance  would  depend  upon 
the  degree  to  which  northern  men  in  Georgia  preserved 
their  original  attitudes  towards  slavery  and  the  Union. 
Georgians  were  divided  in  opinion  on  this  point,  some 
feeling  that  citizens  from  the  North  accepted  entirely 
the  local  view  on  these  subjects,  and  others  suspecting 
that  they  always  preserved  “unsound”  Yankee  ideas. 
Hundley  was  of  the  opinion  that  the  traders,  having 
“set  up  in  some  permanent  employment,  then  profess 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


85 


to  be  intensely  pro-slavery,”  though  they  seldom  own 
slaves  unless  acquired  by  marriage,  preferring  other¬ 
wise  to  hire.  This  is  because  “they  cannot  entirely 
overcome  their  anti-slavery  prejudices,  or  else  because 
they  hope  to  return  North.”55  There  was  probably 
some  truth  in  this  statement.  On  the  other  hand,  it 
did  not  apply  to  that  class  of  northerners  who,  coming 
to  the  state  in  their  early  youth,  had  had  time  to  merge 
entirely  their  interests  with  those  of  their  new  home. 
Indeed,  it  was  notorious  that  some  of  this  type,  like 
Judge  Warner  of  Georgia  and  Governor  Quitman  of 
Mississippi,  became,  as  proselytes  often  have  done, 
veritable  leaders  of  the  extreme  proslavery  and  pro¬ 
southern  view. 

The  natives  were  more  suspicious  of  the  views  of 
Yankee  teachers,  editors,  and  mechanics,  than  they 
were  of  the  merchants.  Mechanics  were  suspected  be¬ 
cause  they  had  no  such  obvious  business  motives  for 
defending  slavery  as  had  the  last  named  class.56  In¬ 
deed,  this  group  was  occasionally  threatened  with  slave 
competition,  as  in  the  case  of  the  printers  already  cited, 
and  their  environment  was  therefore  not  liable  to 
render  them  more  favorable  to  the  institution.  Some 
of  these  men  certainly  held  abolitionist  views  through 
years  of  residence  in  Georgia  towns  and  even  confided 
as  much  to  slave-holders  who  had  become  their  trusted 
friends.57  The  same  was  true  of  some  teachers,  who 
naturally  held  to  theoretical  ideals  more  tenaciously 
than  did  the  merchants,  whose  business  was  linked  with 
that  of  the  planters.  This  fact  was  recognized  by 
Georgians,  who  sometimes  felt  that  the  presence  of 

65  Social  Relations  in  Our  Southern  States,  p.  105. 

""Olmsted,  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  pp.  511,  512. 

67  Paine,  Six  Years  in  a  Georgia  Prison,  pp.  36-51. 


86 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


even  the  able  Yankee  teachers  was  “unfortunate,” 
since  they  were  “not  of  our  institutions  and  therefore 
cannot  arouse  the  state  to  the  cause  of  education.”58 

Distrust  of  northerners  increased,  of  course,  in 
proportion  to  the  increase  in  southern-rights  feeling 
concerning  the  slavery  controversy.  Those  who  took 
extreme  southern  views  on  this  subject  in  the  late 
forties  became  less  friendly  to  the  incoming  Yankee 
traders  in  that  period  than  had  hitherto  been  the  case.59 
In  some  cases,  they  even  attempted  to  boycott  the  new¬ 
comers  entirely.60  At  the  height  of  the  political  con¬ 
troversy,  all  northern  editors  connected  with  Union 
party  journals  became  the  subjects  of  general  distrust 
on  the  part  of  rival  southern-rights  papers.  The  Fed¬ 
eral  Union  and  Augusta  Constitutionalist  insisted  that 
Lee  should  be  forced  to  resign  from  the  Chronicle,  as 
a  Yankee  of  antislavery  and  anti-state  rights  opin¬ 
ions.  His  publishers  backed  him  in  a  formal  state¬ 
ment,  however,  and  his  paper  returned  the  compliment 
by  pointing  the  finger  of  suspicion  at  the  radical  Caro¬ 
linians  associated  with  the  southern-rights  press. 
The  Union  party,  as  a  general  rule,  rallied  to  the  sup¬ 
port  of  such  members  as  were  of  northern  origin, 
claiming  for  them  complete  allegiance  to  southern 
institutions  and  ideals.61 

In  like  manner,  of  course,  feeling  against  the  North 
in  general  increased  in  proportion  as  the  political  storm 
grew.  “Our  southern  friends  often  abuse  and  de¬ 
nounce  the  whole  northern  people  as  our  enemies,” 

59 Federal  Union,  August  10,  1847. 

59  [A.  B.  Longstreet],  Letters  from  Georgia  to  Massachusetts,  p.  20. 

Savannah  Nezvs,  Nov.  11,  1850. 

91  See,  e.g.,  the  letter  of  General  Eli  Warner  to  the  Committee,  Feb¬ 
ruary  14,  1851,  The  Macon  Union  Celebration,  p.  15. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


87 


declared  a  Georgia  planter  in  1851. 62  This  feeling  in 
Georgia,  however,  was  confined  largely  to  the  small 
group  of  extreme  southern-rights  men.  There  is 
every  indication  that,  save  in  times  of  intense  excite¬ 
ment,  the  feeling  in  Georgia  towns  towards  Yankees 
was  friendly,  if  not  cordial.  They  were  welcomed  in 
business,  though  not  always  in  society.63  The  very 
presence  of  so  many  able  northern  people  in  the  cities 
must  have  dispelled  the  more  provincial  forms  of 
prejudice,  if  these  had  existed  in  the  beginning.  The 
correspondent  of  the  Boston  Courier  in  Savannah, 
who  had  many  suggestive  observations  to  make,  found 
that  there  was  “less  sectional  prejudice  in  Georgia 
against  the  North  than  in  any  other  truly  southern 
state.”64  Individual  Yankees,  as  was  noted,  were  even 
able  to  argue  abolitionist  ideals  with  urban  friends 
without  fear  of  denouncement. 

Feeling  was  strong  against  abolitionsists,  yet  even 
here  moderation  was  sometimes  practiced.  In  1848, 
for  instance,  a  man  and  woman  lecturing  upon  “mes¬ 
merism”  in  Savannah  were  found  talking  to  the  Ne¬ 
groes,  telling  them  that  they  worked  too  hard.  The  wo¬ 
man  told  the  Negro  women  that  “if  she  were  in  their 
position,  she  would  not  bear  another  child,”  and  the 
like.  It  seemed  a  typical  case  of  the  abolitionist-on- 
mission  from  the  North  and  might  have  led  to  dire 
consequences.  They  were  simply  ordered  from  the 
county,  however,  no  violence  being  offered.  “Stern 
measures”  would  be  used  only  as  a  last  resort.65  In  the 

"  Ibid. 

“  Letter  of  Mrs.  Julia  Woodward,  September  10,  1923. 

M  Boston  Courier,  January  23,  1850.  A  decade  later  W.  H.  Russell,  an 
English  observer,  noted  that  hatred  of  the  North  was  much  greater  in 
South  Carolina  than  in  Georgia;  W.  H.  Russell,  Pictures  of  Southern 
Life,  Social,  Political  and  Military,  p.  11. 

65  Savannah  Georgian,  June  5,  1848. 


88 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


country  districts,  of  course,  where  ignorance  was  com¬ 
mon,  the  probabilities  of  provincial  prejudice  against 
the  Yankees  was  greater  than  it  was  in  the  towns.66 

The  last  group  of  whites  that  requires  attention  is 
the  European  immigrants.  The  total  number  of  Euro¬ 
peans  in  Georgia  was  small,  as  compared  with  that  in 
the  northern  states,67  but  they  were  concentrated  to 
such  an  extent  in  the  two  mercantile  towns  of  Sa¬ 
vannah  and  Columbus  as  to  have  therein  considerable 
political  and  economic  importance.68  The  Germans, 
English,  and  Irish  were  all  represented.  Germans  and 
Englishmen  came  for  much  the  same  motives  as  actu¬ 
ated  the  northerners,69  while  the  Irish  came  to  swell 
the  numbers  of  the  state’s  eleven  thousand  white 
“laborers.”  Some  of  the  Irish  worked  in  labor  gangs 
in  connection  with  the  railroads  and  on  the  plantations 
as  well  as  in  the  cities.70 

The  Europeans  of  the  laboring  class  disliked  the 
Negroes,  or  were  at  least  jealous  of  them  as  possible 
competitors.71  At  the  same  time,  they  were  usually  de¬ 
voted  to  the  American  government,  having  sought 

M  For  testimony  to  this  effect,  see  Paine,  op.  cit.,  pp.  36-51. 

61  This,  of  course,  was  often  ascribed  by  northerners  to  the  immi¬ 
grants’  dislike  for  slavery.  Southerners  claimed  it  was  due  simply  to 
the  lack  of  industries.  ( Hunt’s  Merchants'  Magazine,  XXI.  498.)  There 
is  also  the  possibility  that  it  was  due  to  race  feeling. 

68  One  third  of  the  white  population  of  Savannah  in  1850  was  foreign 
born.  This,  of  course,  was  a  higher  percentage  than  that  of  some  north¬ 
ern  ports.  See  Stone,  “Some  Problems  in  Southern  Economic  History,” 
American  Historical  Review,  XIII.  779-797. 

“  Thus  an  able  German  musician  by  the  name  of  Brenner,  who  came 
to  Augusta  about  1849,  began  there  the  first  manufacturing  of  pianos 
in  the  state.  This  attracted  considerable  attention.  See  Savannah 
Republican,  Feb.  14,  1851. 

"  Phillips,  American  Negro  Slavery,  pp.  301,  302.  The  actual  number 
of  foreign  born  in  the  state  in  1850  was  given  as  6452.  Over  one  third  of 
these  were  resident  in  Savannah ;  C.  E.  MacGill,  “Immigration  to  the 
Southern  States,  1783-1865,”  The  South  in  the  Building  of  the  Nation, 
V.  600. 

”  Olmsted,  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  p.  512. 


SOCIAL  GROUPS 


89 


refuge  under  it  from  the  depressing  conditions  obtain¬ 
ing  in  Ireland  and  Germany  in  the  late  forties.  They 
were  inclined,  in  1850,  therefore,  to  hold  conservative 
views  concerning  the  Union  government  and  voted 
almost  to  a  man  with  the  Union  party.  In  normal 
times  the  Irish  belonged  generally  to  the  Democratic 
party  and  were  associated  in  Savannah  with  the  same 
phenomena  of  political  turbulence  as  were  connected 
with  their  countrymen  in  the  northern  ports.  A 
“large  portion”  of  the  voters  in  Savannah  were  said 
to  be  Irishmen,  and  their  allegiance  to  the  Union  party 
in  1850  was  an  important  factor  in  carrying  that  city 
for  the  Union  cause.72 

Each  of  these  social  groups  was  to  play  its  part  in 
the  political  struggles  of  1847-1852.  The  interests  and 
attitudes  of  each  group  were  in  large  measure  de¬ 
termined  by  economic  conditions,  and  these,  in  turn, 
determined  the  make-up  and  policies  of  the  parties. 
Out  of  economic  conditions,  then,  developed  social 
groups,  and  out  of  social  groups,  political  parties.  The 
development  of  the  parties  from  these  underlying  fac¬ 
tors  may  now  be  considered. 

"Columbus  Sentinel ,  in  the  Natchez  (Mississippi)  Courier,  December 
6,  1850;  Dr.  R.  D.  Arnold  to  J.  W.  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold 
MSS.  There  was  a  similar  situation  and  result  in  Columbus. 


CHAPTER  III 


PARTY  CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Federal  Union  a  majority 
of  Georgians  were  associated  with  the  Republican 
party.  This  was  the  result  of  the  frontier  character 
of  the  greater  part  of  the  state.  The  power  of  Feder¬ 
alism  was  consequently  slight,  and  the  “Era  of  Good 
Feeling”  was  ushered  in  at  an  earlier  period  in  Georgia 
than  in  most  of  the  other  states.  As  elsewhere,  it  was 
attended  by  the  usual  “bad  feeling”  between  Repub¬ 
lican  factions,  out  of  which  grew  the  first  definite 
division  of  the  people  into  rival  political  parties. 

It  will  be  remembered  that  Middle  Georgia  was 
settled  largely  by  Carolinians  and  Virginians,  each  of 
which  groups  preserved  for  some  time  its  distinction 
from  the  other.  This  distinction  was  based  upon  the 
economic  and  cultural  superiority  of  the  Virginians, 
and  it  was  sometimes  heightened  by  their  success  in 
securing  the  better  lands  in  the  new  country.  Feelings 
of  personal  friendship,  based  upon  social  solidarity, 
prepared  each  of  the  groups  for  a  projection  of  its 
differences  into  the  political  field.  This  projection  did 
not  depend  for  its  realization  upon  the  development  of 
any  distinct  class  consciousness  or  real  economic  issue, 
but  merely  upon  personal  rivalries,  which  would  arouse 
one  man’s  friends  against  another’s. 

The  particular  question  which  first  brought  out  the 
latent  antagonism  seems  to  have  been  the  political  con¬ 
troversy  precipitated  by  the  Yazoo  frauds  connected 
with  the  state’s  western  land  claims.  The  bitter  local 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844 


91 


fight  against  the  fraud  and  speculation  involved  was 
led  by  the  Virginia  group,  whose  propertied  interests 
rendered  them  conservative  in  financial  matters,  while 
the  Carolinians  were  as  a  rule  interested  in  defending 
the  project.1  Group  lines  were  drawn  more  definitely 
as  bitterness  increased.  Leaders  appeared.  Senator 
James  Jackson,  who  led  the  attack  upon  the  Yazoo 
cabal,  was  associated  with  two  able  politicians,  George 
M.  Troup  and  William  H.  Crawford,  while  the  Caro¬ 
linians  were  marshaled  by  that  most  redoubtable  cham¬ 
pion,  “General”  John  Clark.  A  personal  quarrel  en¬ 
sued  in  1803  between  Troup  and  Clark,  which  increased 
the  bitterness  between  their  partisans  and  well  illus¬ 
trates  the  rough  and  tumble  personal  character  of  the 
politics  of  the  period.2  By  1820  the  two  groups  were 
fairly  distinct  throughout  the  state  and  had  assumed 
as  political  appellations  the  names  of  these  two  cham¬ 
pions.  The  “Troup  Party”  and  the  “Clark  Party” 
struggled  between  that  date  and  1825  for  the  election 
of  the  legislature,  the  governor,  hitherto,  being  chosen 
by  that  body.  In  1825  the  Clark  group,  displaying  a 
relatively  democratic  viewpoint  based  upon  the  char¬ 
acter  of  its  supporters,  placed  the  election  of  the  gover¬ 
nor  in  the  hands  of  the  people.  The  first  election  under 
this  system  showed  clearly  that  the  Troup  party  repre¬ 
sented  the  planter  interests  of  the  coast  and  eastern 
Central  Georgia,  while  the  other  represented  those  of 
the  small  farmers  in  the  newer  settlements  in  western 
Central  Georgia  and  the  Pine  Barrens.3 

lU.  B.  Phillips,  “Georgia  and  State  Rights,”  American  Historical 
Association,  Annual  Report,  1901,  II.  89-96,  (hereinafter  cited  as  Geor¬ 
gia  and  State  Rights).  J.  E.  D.  Shipp,  Life  and  Times  of  Wm.  H. 
Crawford  (Americus,  Georgia,  1909),  p.  46. 

3  John  Clark,  Considerations  on  the  Principles  of  William  H.  Craw¬ 
ford  (Augusta,  1819),  pp.  1-6;  Andrews,  Reminiscences,  p.  61. 

3  Phillips,  op.  cit.,  pp.  89-96. 


92 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Two  interesting  exceptions  to  this  rule  appeared. 
In  the  Pine  Barrens  a  tier  of  three  counties,  Laurens, 
Tattnall,  and  Montgomery,  went  for  Troup,  apparently 
because  of  the  accident  that  this  was  Troup’s  home 
country, — a  matter  of  some  weight  in  personal  poli¬ 
tics.4  On  the  other  hand,  a  tier  of  counties  running 
athwart  Central  Georgia  remained  consistent  sup¬ 
porters  of  the  Clark  faction,  even  after  they  were  com¬ 
pletely  merged  in  the  Cotton  Belt.  These  exceptional 
areas  are  of  interest,  because  they  persisted  throughout 
the  entire  length  of  ante-bellum  history  and  were  quite 
noticeable  in  the  1850  period.  There  seems  to  have 
been  no  economic  basis  for  this  phenomenon,5  which 
must  therefore  be  attributed  to  personal  origin,  though 
leading  to  the  formation  of  habits  that  persisted 
through  periods  of  economic  and  political  crisis.6 

With  the  exception  of  these  areas,  the  several  sec¬ 
tions  of  the  state  aligned  themselves  politically,  from 
this  time  on,  in  groups  that  generally  had  economic  and 
social  bases.  That  lines  were  not  always  sharply 
drawn  was  due  to  three  circumstances.  The  first  was 
the  fact  that  in  the  early  days  social  distinctions  be¬ 
tween  farmer  and  planter  were  not  as  marked  as  in  the 
later  period  of  concentrated  plantation  capital  and 
resultant  social  stratification.  The  second  was  the 
circumstance  that  in  the  early  period  there  were  few 
issues  other  than  the  personal  to  heighten  political  dis¬ 
tinctions.  The  third,  of  particular  concern  here,  was 
the  fact  that  the  constitutional  issue  concerning  the 
respective  rights  of  the  federal  and  state  governments 

4  Phillips,  op  cit.  pp.  104,  105. 

‘See  White,  Georgia  Statistics,  pp.  116,  117,  332,  333,  363,  4 22,  534. 
535,  etc. ;  Olmsted,  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  II.  386-391 ;  Savannah,  Geor¬ 
gian,  September  13,  1849. 

6  See  Maps  Nos.  5.  6,  and  7,  pp.  109,  171,  320. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844 


93 


never  entirely  adapted  itself  to  the  political  divisions 
based  upon  economic  foundations.  Whenever  it  arose, 
it  tended  to  split  the  two  parties  and  led  to  a  regroup¬ 
ing  of  political  forces.  As  a  result  of  these  several 
circumstances,  the  story  of  Georgia  politics  between 
1830  and  1850  was  often  so  void  of  real  issues  as  to 
seem  meaningless,  and  at  other  times  was  so  confused 
as  to  defy  analysis. 

The  first  serious  constitutional  issue  arose  in  the 
late  twenties,  in  connection  with  the  question  of  Indian 
lands  in  the  state.  The  position  taken  by  Governor 
Troup  against  the  Federal  government,  in  his  effort  to 
seize  these  lands,  tended  to  identify  his  party  with  the 
state-rights  view,  while  in  opposition  the  Clark  party 
defended  the  authority  of  the  Union.  Thus  early,  the 
one  became  the  Troup-State-Rights  party  and  the1 
other  the  Clark-Union  party.7  In  a  search  for  a  con¬ 
stitutional  theory  justifying  the  state’s  opposition  to 
the  Federal  government,  the  former  was  inclined  to1 
hold  that  sovereignty  was  vested  in  the  people  of  the 
states  or  in  the  states  themselves,  while  the  latter  held 
that  the  rights  of  the  state  should  be  emphasized  only 
within  the  limits  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  Federal 
Constitution.8 

Late  in  the  twenties,  the  constitutional  issue  was  in¬ 
tensified  by  the  development  of  southern  opposition  to 
the  new  protective  tariffs  and  by  the  dramatic  opposi¬ 
tion  of  South  Carolina  to  that  legislation.  The  tariff 
of  1828  led  to  serious  protest  in  Georgia,  as  in 
other  states,  and  the  legislature  declared  it  unconstitu¬ 
tional  and  suggested  the  calling  of  a  “Southern  Con- 

7  Miller,  Bench  and  Bar  of  Georgia,  I.  261.  These  names  were  not 
firmly  fixed,  however,  until  after  1833. 

8  Phillips,  op.  cit.,  p.  123. 


94 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


vention”  to  devise  “a  suitable  mode  of  resistance.”9 
The  election  of  Jackson,  a  southern  man  trusted  by 
both  Georgia  parties  upon  the  tariff  and  the  Indian 
questions,  quieted  agitation  in  Georgia  from  1828  to 
1832.  In  the  latter  year,  the  approach  of  the  crisis 
between  South  Carolina  and  the  Federal  government 
again  involved  Georgia  in  the  controversy.  The  ques¬ 
tion  which  now  faced  the  people  was  not  the  question 
of  the  protective  tariff,  for  to  this  there  was  general 
opposition,  but  the  question  of  the  constitutional 
remedy.  Would  Georgia  support  South  Carolina  in 
the  nullification  of  the  Federal  statute? 

Excitement  became  intense  in  the  state,  as  Carolina 
nullified,  and  Jackson  threatened.  State-rights  men 
demanded  a  state  convention  to  determine  upon  neces¬ 
sary  action ;  this  demand  was  furthered  by  party  cau¬ 
cuses,  debated,  and  finally  approved  in  the  legislature. 
The  action  of  the  convention,  however,  was  to  be  sub¬ 
mitted  to  the  people  and  to  the  legislature  itself.10 
The  public  debate,  which  preceded  and  followed  the 
choice  of  the  delegates,  brought  out  the  forces  at  work 
in  favor  of  both  the  Union  and  nullification  positions. 
As  these  forces  were  analogous  to  those  in  operation 
in  1850,  and  as  this  analogy  was  consciously  realized  in 
the  later  period,  it  is  well  to  note  it  here.11 

The  outstanding  force  favoring  nullification  was 
the  leadership  and  influence  of  South  Carolina.  Her 
politicians  were  active  in  sending  literature  and 
speakers  across  the  river  as  apostles  of  the  nullification 
creed.  Efforts  were  made  to  create  a  strong  feeling 

*  H.  V.  Ames,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  pp.  153,  154. 

10  Miller,  Bench  and  Bar,  II.  322. 

For  illustrations  of  contemporary  comparisons  of  the  two  periods, 
see  The  Macon  Union  Celebration  (February  22,  1851),  pp.  12,  19,  25,  41, 
44,  etc. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844 


95 


■of  fraternity  between  the  two  states  upon  this  common 
doctrine.12  Some  Georgians  became  convinced  that  the 
economic  future  as  well  as  the  sovereign  rights  of  their 
state  were  threatened  by  the  tyrannical  and  unconsti¬ 
tutional  attempt  to  thrust  a  ruinous  protective  tariff 
upon  them.  Such  men  became  willing  disciples  of 
the  Charleston  leaders.  They  condemned  the  tariff, 
warned  of  federal  usurpation,  and  villified  the  Union 
men  as  “old  federalists,”  “modern  consolidationists,” 
and  “submissionists”  to  northern  oppression.13  On  the 
other  hand,  they  denied  indignantly  that  they  were 
“agitators,”  “traitors,”  or  “disunionists.”  They  loved 
the  Union,  but  they  loved  Georgia  more.  In  addition 
to  urging  the  support  of  courageous  Carolina,  they 
advocated  economic  pressure  against  the  North.  If 
the  Yankees  would  tax  them  through  the  tariff,  then 
let  Georgia  tax  the  Yankees’  goods  when  they  were 
offered  in  the^state  for  sale.14 

If  the  tariff  policy  was  persisted  in,  the  nullifiers 
declared,  Georgia  might  not  only  support  the  sister 
state  but  should  herself  nullify  the  tariff  law.  Had 
she  not  already  nullified  the  decision  of  the  federal 
court  in  the  case  of  the  Indian  controversy?  Nullifi¬ 
cation  was,  as  Calhoun  held,  a  purely  constitutional 
remedy  which  would  save  rather  than  destroy  the 
Union.  As  a  program  of  action  looking  in  this  direc¬ 
tion,  the  state  convention  should  call  or  cooperate  with 
a  general  southern  convention  to  decide  upon  joint 
southern  action. 

“Augusta  Chronicle,  March  7,  1832;  Macon  Georgia  Messenger, 
March  10,  1832,  etc.,  quoted  in  E.  M.  Coulter,  “The  Nullification  Move¬ 
ment  in  Georgia,”  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  V.  No.  1,  p.  11. 

13  Proceedings  of  the  States'  Rights  Party  Convention,  November  13, 
1833,  (Milledgeville,  1833),  passim. 

14  David  Christy,  Cotton  is  King,  p.  93  (Cincinnati,  1855).  It  is  pos¬ 
sible  that  Christy  confuses  this  matter  of  dating  the  first  demand  for 
taxing  northern  goods. 


96 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


On  the  other  hand,  even  as  early  as  1833,  the  very 
fact  that  South  Carolina  led  the  state-rights  movement 
was  in  itself  calculated  to  defeat  it.  It  has  been 
pointed  out  in  a  previous  chapter  that  there  had  long 
been  feeling  between  Georgia  and  Carolina  based  upon 
economic  and  social  rivalry.  This  had  not  been  im¬ 
proved  by  the  political  rivalry  between  Crawford  and 
Calhoun  and  by  the  latter’s  unfriendly  attitude  toward 
Georgia’s  Indian  policy.  Georgia’s  pride  was,  therefore, 
incensed  at  the  attempt  of  South  Carolina  to  ‘‘lead  her 
by  the  nose”  towards  any  political  policy  whatsoever. 
This  feeling  was  so  strong  that  it  would  have  been 
wiser  had  the  Carolinians  concealed  to  some  extent 
their  missionary  efforts  on  behalf  of  nullification.  In 
addition  to  the  dislike  for  “Palmettodom,”  there  ex¬ 
isted  in  the  minds  of  most  Georgians  a  sincere  and 
traditional  love  for  the  “Union  of  the  Fathers,”  which 
was  a  force  of  considerable  potency  in  preventing  the 
average  man  from  finally  committing  himself  to  an 
anti-Union  policy.  Moreover,  the  average  farmer  was 
not  conscious  of  direct  injury  from  the  tariff.  As  it 
happened,  the  political  crisis  came  in  a  period  of  agri¬ 
cultural  expansion  in  the  western  part  of  Georgia,  and 
there  were  anticipations  of  prosperity  that  prevented 
great  economic  discontent  and  brought  aversion  for 
any  disturbance  that  might  possibly  lead  to  civil  war.15 
In  addition  to  this,  many  looked  to  Jackson  for  sym¬ 
pathy  in  the  Indian  difficulties  and  were  anxious,  for 
this  reason,  not  to  break  with  the  administration.  In 
other  words,  the  economic  forces  were  against  a  radical 
state-rights  stand  in  1833. 

”  R.  D.  Arnold,  Oration  Delivered  to  the  Union  and  Southern  Rights 
Association  of  Chatham  County,  July  4,  1835,  pp.  1-5. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844 


97 


Those  who  for  all  these  reasons  opposed  nullifica¬ 
tion  attacked  its  supporters  as  “traitors,”  “agitators,” 
and  “disunionists.”  The  latter  were  accused  of  wish¬ 
ing  to  make  the  state  into  a  “mere  dependency  of  Pal- 
mettodom.”  The  tariff  was  bad,  declared  the  Union 
men,  but  it  could  be  remedied  within  the  Union  and  by 
constitutional  means.  Calhoun’s  theory  of  an  indivis¬ 
ible  sovereignty  resting  in  the  state  was  a  mere  “meta¬ 
physical  entity”  of  his  own  creation.  Sovereignty,  as 
Madison  had  held,  was  divided  between  the  state  and 
the  Federal  governments,  and  nullification  was  not  a 
power  reserved  to  the  state.16  If  nullification  was  not 
a  constitutional  remedy,  any  attempt  to  apply  it  was 
sheer  revolution.  Union  men  would,  therefore,  shun 
it  until  such  a  desperate  time  as  might  find  them  ready 
for  revolution.17  The  Union  men  were  not  “submis- 
sionists,”  but  as  good  southerners  as  any  others  in  the 
community.  Indeed,  in  their  effort  to  save  the  state 
from  the  Carolina  heresy,  they  were  better  southerners 
than  their  opponents.  All  good  men  and  true  were 
urged  to  lay  aside  old  party  lines  and  stand  by  the 
state  and  the  nation. 

As  the  debate  preceding  and  following  the  nulli¬ 
fication  convention  continued,  it  became  increasingly 
apparent  that  the  nullifiers  had  thundered  out  of  all 
proportion  to  their  numbers.18  The  radicals  began  to 
tone  down  as  the  contest  proceeded.  Dislike  for  South 
Carolina,  love  for  the  Union,  economic  prosperity  and 
consequent  fear  of  civil  disturbance — all  the  forces 

16  Ibid.,  Arnold  would  have  been  interested  in  the  recent  works  of  Laski 
and  others  denying  the  indivisibility  of  sovereignty. 

17  This  was  analogous  to  the  position  taken  by  Georgia  conservatives  in 
1851,  that  “the  right  of  secession”  was  a  revolutionary,  not  a  constitu¬ 
tional  one. 

“Miller,  Bench  and  Bar,  I.  40,  II.  322;  Coulter,  op.  cit.,  p.  29;  Phil¬ 
lips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  pp.  130-132. 


98 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


mentioned  disinclined  the  masses  in  Georgia  to  radical 
political  expedients.  Then  a  compromise  program 
was  adopted  at  the  national  capital,  which  made  certain 
the  victory  of  the  conservative  forces  in  the  home  state. 

The  nullification  controversy  was  analogous  in 
many  ways  to  the  slavery  controversy  of  1850.  It 
was  more  than  a  mere  analogy,  however.  It  was,  to 
some  extent,  related  to  the  later  crisis  as  cause  to  effect. 
To  begin  with,  it  increased  the  political  distrust  of 
South  Carolina  and  the  fear  that  this  state  wished  to 
dominate  her  neighbor.  This  feeling  became  so  com¬ 
mon  that  it  even  affected  the  attitude  of  the  Georgia 
delegation  in  Congress  towards  that  of  South  Caro¬ 
lina.  “Georgia  came,”  wrote  General  James  Hamilton 
to  Langdon  Cheves  nearly  twenty  years  later,  “to  dis¬ 
like  us  .  .  .  more  than  the  people  of  Massachusetts. 
When  in  Congress  I  was  often  grieved  and  sometimes 
amused  by  this  jealousy.”19  This  attitude  was  to  be  a 
potent  force  in  Georgia  when  South  Carolina  once 
again  essayed  southern  leadership. 

In  addition  to  this,  the  necessity  for  defending  the 
Union  acted  as  a  stimulus  to  Union  feeling  in  Georgia. 
Seventeen  years  later,  when  faced  with  a  similar  ne¬ 
cessity,  many  old  Union  men  recalled  with  pride  their 
unswerving  attachment  to  the  Union  in  the  days  of 
1833.  The  old  battles  were  recalled,  and  the  old  tra¬ 
dition  of  standing  by  the  Union  was  effectively  invoked 
once  more.20  It  is  possible,  to  be  sure,  that  with  some 
Georgians  the  reverse  of  this  became  true;  that  is,  that 
some  ceased  at  this  time  to  hold  the  same  reverence  for 
a  Union,  whose  value,  having  been  calculated  once, 
might  again  be  questioned.  That  this  was  not  so  true 

1#  Charleston  Courier,  in  the  Savannah  Republican,  January  16,  1851. 

10  For  such  sentiments,  see  the  letters  in  the  Macon  Union  Celebration, 
pp.  12,  19,  25,  etc. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844 


99 


as  might  logically  have  been  the  case  was  due  to  a 
peculiar  political  shift  of  many  of  the  southern-rights 
men  of  1833,  which  led  them  into  the  Union  party 
during  the  next  decade. 

The  effect  of  the  constitutional  controversy  upon 
the  political  parties  was,  as  has  been  suggested,  to  force 
new  alignments  and  consequent  political  confusion. 
The  issue  did  not  fit  itself  perfectly  to  the  old  partisan 
patterns.  It  is  true  that  the  Troup  party,  with  some¬ 
thing  of  a  state-rights  tradition  inherited  from  the  i/ 
Indian  episode,  tended  more  to  favor  nullification, 
while  the  Clark  party  tended  to  stand  by  the  Union. 
This  party  saw  in  Jackson  the  especial  champion  of  its 
small  farmer  interests  and  democratic  principles  and 
was  particularly  loath  to  break  with  him  over  other 
issues.  They  were,  moreover,  the  class  in  Georgia 
which  had  least  in  common,  socially  or  economically, 
with  the  planter-aristocrats  leading  the  South  Caro¬ 
lina  movement.  Nevertheless,  a  few  old  Clark  men  did 
become  nullificationists  and  joined  the  State-Rights 
party.  On  the  other  hand,  the  more  conservative 
Troup  men,  who  opposed  nullification,  came  to  cooper¬ 
ate  with  the  bulk  of  the  old  Clark  party  against  that 
doctrine.  The  factors  causing  this  last  shift  were, 
apart  from  general  conservatism,  the  political  quarrel 
which  had  been  going  on  between  Calhoun  and  the 
Troup  leader,  Crawford,  during  the  twenties  and  the 
failure  of  Calhoun  to  support  Troup’s  Indian  policy.21 
The  transitional  stage  in  this  realignment  was  well  in¬ 
dicated  by  the  use  for  some  time  of  the  appellations, 
“Troup-Union”  and  “Clark-Union”  parties.22 

21 J.  A.  Turner,  “William  C.  Dawson,”  in  The  Plantation,  I.  No.  1, 
p.  80,  (1860). 

”  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  132. 


100 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


So  far  as  the  majority  of  the  Union  party  of  the 
later  thirties  was  made  up  of  the  old  Clark  men,  it  was 
quite  natural  that  this  party  should  have  continued  to 
be  preeminently  the  party  of  the  smaller  farmers,  con¬ 
centrated  in  “Cherokee,”  western  Central  Georgia, 
and  in  parts  of  the  Pine  Barrens.  To  the  extent  that 
the  bulk  of  the  State-Rights  party  was  composed  of  old 
T roup  men,  its  strength  was  necessarily  greatest  in  the 
plantation  areas  of  Central  and  Coastal  Georgia.  These 
last  two  regions  had  at  first  been  politically  as  well  as 
socially  distinct,  for  the  coastal  planters  represented 
the  oldest  aristocracy  in  the  state.  The  early  section¬ 
alism  between  the  coast  and  the  interior  disappeared 
gradually,  however,  as  wealth  increased  in  Central 
Georgia  and  as  transportation  between  the  two  areas 
across  the  Pine  Barrens  improved.  Economic  and 
social  solidarity  led  to  political  solidarity. 

The  chief  political  phenomenon  of  the  late  thirties 
was  the  alignment  of  the  Union  and  State-Rights 
parties  with  the  existing  national  organizations.  It 
was  to  be  expected,  a  priori,  that  the  Clark-Union 
party  of  small  farmers  would  find  itself  in  sympathy 
with  the  Jacksonian  Democracy.  Their  economic 
status  and  democratic  ideals  naturally  tended,  other 
things  being  equal,  to  bring  a  union  with  the  adminis¬ 
tration  group.  In  other  states,  notably  in  North 
Carolina,  special  circumstances  nullified  this  economic 
tendency,  but  in  Georgia  the  force  of  local  circum¬ 
stances  actually  furthered  it.  The  pioneers  who  settled 
Upper  Georgia  were,  on  the  one  hand,  indebted  to 
Jackson  for  his  friendly  attitude  concerning  the  Indian 
matter  and,  on  the  other,  were  a  rugged  and  self-reli¬ 
ant  type,  most  suspicious  of  the  South  Carolina  planter 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  101 


aristocracy  and  opposed  to  South  Carolina  leadership 
in  Georgia  political  affairs.  When  the  election  of  1840 
came,  therefore,  it  found  the  Georgia  Union  men  sup¬ 
porting  the  national  Democrats,  and  the  latter  name 
began  to  be  used  in  the  state  at  about  this  time. 

Meanwhile,  the  local  State-Rights  party  had  fol¬ 
lowed  its  Carolina  leader,  John  C.  Calhoun,  into  a 
political  alliance  with  the  National  Republicans  of  the 
North.  The  alliance  of  southern  anti-tariff  and  state- 
rights  men  with  northern  pro-tariff  nationalists  was  as 
anomalous  as  anything  in  American  party  history 
and  was  based  largely  upon  the  expediency  of  common 
opposition  to  the  Jackson  administration.  This  “Whig” 
party  was,  of  course,  an  essentially  unstable  combina¬ 
tion,  whose  equilibrium  could  be  maintained  only  so 
long  as  the  two  elements  maintained  an  equal  influence. 
When  the  nomination  of  Harrison  in  1840  showed  the 
National  Republicans  in  control  under  Clay’s  leader¬ 
ship,  Calhoun  called  upon  the  state-rights  Carolinians 
to  leave  the  organization.  The  more  moderate  na¬ 
tionalism  of  V an  Buren  having  meanwhile  succeeded 
the  militant  policy  of  Jackson  in  the  Democracy,  it  was 
possible  for  the  Calhoun  men  in  South  Carolina  to 
return,  prodigal-like,  to  their  original  political  home. 
They  were  received  there  with  rejoicing  by  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  fathers,  who  bestowed  upon  them  such  political 
fatted  calves  as  aroused  some  jealousy  among  the  more 
faithful  of  the  brethren.  The  return  of  the  Calhoun- 
ites  was  hastened  by  the  growth  of  antislavery  feeling 
among  the  northern  Whigs,  as  well  as  by  the  tariff 
and  nationalistic  policies  of  the  latter.  It  was  also 
aided  at  home  by  the  gradual  disappearance  of  the 
nullification  issue  and  a  consequent  reunion  of  the 


102 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Union  and  nullification  parties  in  Calhoun’s  own 
state.23 

The  question  in  Georgia  was  whether  this  move¬ 
ment  back  to  the  Democracy  would  carry  with  it  most 
of  the  local  Whigs.  The  situation  was  complicated 
when  the  presidential  campaign  of  1840  necessitated 
action  one  way  or  the  other.  Several  circumstances 
had  arisen  which  made  it  theoretically  improbable  that 
the  bulk  of  the  Georgia  Whigs  would  leave  the  party. 
They  were  probably  becoming  more  and  more  con¬ 
cerned  with  the  practical  advantages  of  their  new  po¬ 
litical  alliance.  The  Georgia  leaders,  unlike  the  more 
ambitious  Calhoun,  began  to  see  a  real  place  for  them¬ 
selves  in  the  national  organization.  The  fact  that  the 
outstanding  Georgia  Whig  politician  of  the  period, 
John  McPherson  Berrien,  became  the  strong  ally  of 
the  northern  Whigs  at  the  very  time  that  Calhoun  had 
to  abandon  them  is  probably  illustrative  of  this  op¬ 
portunism.  It  was  true,  to  be  sure,  that  Clay  was 
committing  the  Whig  party  to  the  tariff  and  to  the 
nationalism  of  the  old  National  Republicans.  In¬ 
teresting  manufacturing  possibilities,  however,  were 
opening  up  before  the  bourgeoisie  of  the  Black  Belt,  to 
which  group  the  majority  of  the  Troup  state-rights 
Whig  party  leaders  belonged.  They,  therefore,  began 
to  be  more  favorable  to  moderate  protective  principles 
for  the  same  reason  that  Calhoun  himself  had  favored 
them  some  twenty  years  before ;  that  is,  because  of  the 
hope  that  they  might  share  in  their  benefits.  It  was 
also  true  that  the  northern  Whigs  were  beginning  to 
display  suspiciously  antislavery  tendencies,  but  the 
planter  class,  as  has  been  observed,  were  usually  not 

”  A.  C.  Cole,  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South,  pp.  28-30,  44-49 ;  E.  M. 
Carroll,  Origins  of  the  Whig  Party,  chapter  v.  passim. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  103 


anxious  to  agitate  this  issue.  As  for  the  nationalism 
of  the  northern  allies,  this  was  probably  not  so  objec¬ 
tionable  in  1840  as  it  had  been  in  1835,  since  the  nulli¬ 
fication  question  had,  meanwhile,  apparently  become  a 
dead  issue.  All  of  these  considerations  would  seem 
sufficient,  a  priori,  to  explain  what  actually  did  finally 
occur ;  that  is,  that  the  majority  of  the  Georgia  Whigs 
were  able  to  continue  the  political  alliance  with  the 
northern  party,  though  it  was  an  alliance  which  was 
always  of  an  inherently  unstable  character.24  So 
surely  as  a  real  issue  like  the  slavery  question  should 
arise,  so  surely  would  this  alliance  be  threatened  with 
destruction. 

Nevertheless,  the  return  of  Calhoun  from  the  dry 
husks  of  Whiggery  was  not  entirely  without  influence 
in  Georgia.  It  was  logically  impossible  for  the  more 
extreme  men  of  the  old  State-Rights  party  to  remain 
within  the  Whig  camp  after  its  control  had  passed  into 
the  hands  of  the  Clay  nationalists.  It  was  also  highly 
objectionable  for  the  more  extreme  proslavery  men  to 
remain  in  alliance  with  a  northern  party  already  so 
tainted  with  antislavery  associations.  It  was  this  last 
objection  which  was  most  emphasized  by  the  malcon¬ 
tent  Georgia  Whigs,  and  this,  the  first  appearance  in 
Georgia  internal  politics  of  slavery  as  a  major  issue, 

24  For  contemporary  opinion  in  Georgia  on  this  development,  see 
Johnston  and  Browne,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  p.  140;  for  a  description 
of  the  national  background  see  Cole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  48-51.  Phillips  is  of 
the  opinion  that  the  Whig  leaders  stayed  with  their  party  with  the 
“half  conceived  idea”  of  dominating  it  for  southern  interests,  (op.  cit.. 
p.  148,)  while  Stephens,  looking  back  after  nearly  thirty  years,  says  that 
as  a  State-Rights  man  in  1840  he  disliked  both  Harrison  and  Van  Buren, 
but  his  objection  to  the  northern  principles  of  the  former  were  out¬ 
weighed  by  his  objections  to  the  financial  principles  of  the  latter.  It 
is  possible  that  some  such  a  view  was  in  the  minds  of  many  of  the 
Georgia  Whigs,  rather  than  such  a  rational  analysis  as  has  been  given 
above.  Yet  this  would  not  necessarily  invalidate  that  analysis. 


104 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


was  ominous  of  the  coming  storm.25  A  number  of  Whig 
leaders  who  held  these  views,  Colquitt,  H.  M.  Mc¬ 
Allister,  Haralson,  Cooper,  Chappel,  and  others,  bolted 
to  the  Democratic  party  after  the  nomination  of  Har¬ 
rison  and  proceeded  to  appeal  energetically  to  the  mass 
of  Whig  voters  to  do  likewise.  The  Whigs,  they 
claimed,  were  moving  under  northern  influence 
towards  “consolidation”  and  “federalism.”  They  were 
tainted  with  protectionism  and  antislavery  principles 
and  were  therefore  essentially  “unsound”  upon  all  the 
old  principles  of  the  true  southern  Whig  party.  The 
Democrats,  now  that  Jackson  was  out,  were  more  to  be 
trusted  than  the  changing  Whigs.26 

It  is  difficult  to  say  how  many  state-rights  Whigs 
bolted  the  party  in  answer  to  this  appeal.  Only  a  close 
study  of  the  elections  between  about  1836  and  1842 
would  reveal  this  with  even  approximate  accuracy,  and 
this  hardly  falls  within  the  plan  of  the  present  study. 
The  victory  of  the  Whig  party  in  Georgia  in  the  na¬ 
tional  election  of  1840  would  seem  to  indicate  that  its 
losses  in  the  state  had  not  been  very  extensive.  This 
evidence  is  not  conclusive,  however,  because  of  the 
fact  that  there  was  at  the  time  a  temporary  swing  of 
the  Democratic  farmers  to  the  “Tippecanoe”  ranks. 
Whig  victories  in  the  state  elections  in  1843  and  1845, 
however,  do  show  that  the  number  of  state-rights 
Whigs  who  deserted  in  1840  must  have  been  small. 

The  lifting  of  the  smoke  of  battle  after  the  1840 
campaign,  then,  again  revealed  new  alignments  and 

35  Slavery,  of  course,  had  been  a  matter  of  controversy  in  the  colonial 
period. 

30  H.  M.  McAllister,  Address  to  the  Democratic-Republican  Conven¬ 
tion  of  Georgia,  Milledgeville,  July  4,  1840.  (Milledgeville,  1840)  ; 
W.  F.  Colquitt,  Circular  to  the  States  Rights  Party  of  Georgia,  (Milledge¬ 
ville,  1840)  ;  J.  A.  Turner,  op.  cit.,  pp.  72-77,  gives  an  able  resume  of 
this  story,  written  in  1860. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  105 


new  elements  in  the  two  parties.  These  remained  sub¬ 
stantially  the  same  from  this  time  until  the  political 
struggle  of  1850  again  transcended  old  party  lines. 

Within  the  Democratic  party  were  now  two  fairly 
distinct,  though  temporarily  harmonious,  elements.  The 
first  was  the  old  Clark-Union  party  group,  distributed 
throughout  Georgia,  but  concentrated  as  before  in  the 
Cherokee  section  and  weakest  in  the  coastal  area. 
These  men  always  had  been  and  usually  remained 
Democratic,  pro-Union  voters.  In  the  Cherokee  sec¬ 
tion,  as  has  been  previously  observed,  they  had  little 
concern  in  slave-holding  interests  and  probably  less 
intense  racial  consciousness  than  that  obtaining  in  the 
Pine  Barrens  area.  The  second  element  was  that  of 
the  one-time  state-rights  Whigs,  led  by  Colquitt  and 
McAllister,  who  always  had  been  and  usually  remained 
consistent  state-rights  and  proslavery  voters.  Subse¬ 
quent  events  showed  that  this  element  was  strongest 
along  the  lower  Savannah  on  the  South  Carolina 
border,  in  the  Democratic  belt  in  Central  Georgia,  in 
certain  towns  where  the  Carolina  influence  was  strong, 
(notably  Columbus  and  Savannah),  and  in  parts  of  the 
Pine  Barrens. 

The  presence  in  the  old  Union  party  of  these  “Cal¬ 
houn  Democrats,”  as  they  came  to  be  called,  led  to  con¬ 
cessions  on  the  part  of  that  party  to  the  state-rights 
views  and  leaders.  Colquitt  was  sent  to  the  Senate, 
McAllister  and  McDonald  were  both  nominated 
for  the  governorship.  The  Calhounites’  persistence  in 
their  principles  created  some  friction,  but  also  brought 
results.  One  Union  Democrat  complained  afterwards 
that  they  “continued  to  maintain  their  state-rights 


106 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


principles  on  all  occasions  and  at  the  expense  of  the 
feelings  of  the  old  Union  element.”27  Some  Union 
men  were  influenced  by  this  propaganda,  which  was 
especially  effective  within  the  party  so  soon  as  sec¬ 
tional  issues  again  became  acute  about  1848.  As  a 
result,  there  were  notable  conversions  of  old  Union 
Democrat  leaders,  such  as  ex-Governor  Wilson  Lump¬ 
kin  and  Governor  George  W.  Towns,  to  the  particu- 
larist  creed.  That  the  bulk  of  the  Democrats  had  not 
been  converted  to  extreme  “Calhounism”  by  1850, 
is  indicated  by  the  elections  of  that  year.  Yet  it  is 
also  true  that  the  bulk  of  the  party  was  more  sensitive 
to  questions  of  state-rights  and  sectional  interest  in 
general  at  this  time  than  would  have  been  the  case  fif¬ 
teen  years  before.  This  is  shown  in  the  election  of  1851, 
when  only  about  one  fifth  of  the  party  maintained  its 
originally  strong  Union  position.  This  change  in 
party  teeling  may  be  ascribed  both  to  the  intensification 
of  the  issue  that  year  and  to  the  “boring  from  within” 
by  Calhoun  Democrats,  a  process  which  by  that  time 
had  been  going  on  for  more  than  a  decade. 

The  extent  to  which  this  “boring  from  within”  had 
been  carried  by  the  Calhounites  was  not  fully  realized 
by  the  old  Union  Democrats  until  the  crisis  of  1850 
made  it  obvious  for  the  first  time.  Then  there  was 
much  indignation  in  the  old  Clark  camp,  and  regret 
was  frequently  expressed  that  the  party  had  ever  ad¬ 
mitted  the  old  state-rights  Whig  element  to  member¬ 
ship.  “As  a  Clark  man,”  wrote  John  B.  Lamar  at  this 
time,  “as  a  Union  man  in  1833,  and  ever  since  as  a 

”John  H.  Lumpkin,  letter  dated  “Rome,  April  27,  1851,”  in  the 
Savannah  Republican,  May  5,  1851.  He  regrets  that  “his  old  uncle. 
Governor  Lumpkin,  and  other  old  Union  men  have  accepted  the  states’ 
rights  view.” 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  107 


Democrat  I  have  been  associated  with  this  party.  .  . 
Its  stern  opposition  to  the  dis-union  of  a  former  day 
commended  it  to  the  favor  of  the  people  of  the  state.” 
But  the  disunionists  of  1833,  “having  failed  to  ac¬ 
complish  their  baneful  purpose  over  the  heads  of  the 
Union  men,  have  resorted  to  the  more  subtle  policy  of 
winning  our  confidence,  insinuating  themselves  among 
us  .  .  .  only  to  betray  us.  We  believed  and  ac¬ 
cepted  them.  Too  bad!  Now  from  within  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party  they  shout  their  old  Whig-Nullification 
cries  of  1833. ”28 

The  Whigs,  meanwhile,  retained  after  1840  the 
majority  of  the  old  State-Rights  party  of  the  planta¬ 
tion  areas  (as  was  shown  by  the  elections  of  the  next 
few  years)  save  for  the  few  extremists  who  had  gone 
over  to  trouble  the  Democrats.  This  very  loss, 
while  not  sufficient  to  affect  seriously  the  voting 
strength  of  the  party,  did  purge  it  of  its  radical  leader¬ 
ship  and  thus  facilitated  its  progress  towards  a  con¬ 
servative  position  upon  constitutional  and  sectional 
issues.  The  fact  that  the  Whig  party  of  Georgia  re¬ 
tained  in  1840  a  greater  majority  of  the  old  state- 
rights  element  than  the  same  party  succeeded  in  hold¬ 
ing  in  the  neighboring  states  has  led  to  the  suggestion, 
to  be  sure,  that  the  Georgia  Whigs  also  retained  a 
greater  degree  of  the  particularist  feeling  than  did 
their  brethren  in  the  other  states.29  There  seems  to  be 
little  evidence  substantiating  this  view  and  much  that 
would  uphold  an  opposing  thesis.  It  is  safe  to  say  that 
the  Georgia  Whigs  became  as  strongly  attached  to 

28  J.  B.  Lamar,  February  27,  1851,  to  the  Committee,  The  Macon 
Union  Celebration,  p.  25. 

29  R.  R.  Russel,  Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism,  1840- 
1861,  pp.  73,  75,  76. 


108 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Union  principles  as  did  their  political  brethren  in  other 
parts  of  the  Lower  South.30 

There  was,  to  be  sure,  a  little  group  of  Whigs  in 
Georgia  who  sided  with  the  Calhoun  Democrats  in 
1850  in  urging  radical  state  action,  but  this  group  was 
so  small  as  to  be  politically  insignificant  in  the  struggle 
of  that  year.  It  was  only  as  an  omen  of  what  was  to 
come  that  this  element  was  of  interest  at  that  time. 
The  agitation  of  the  fifties  had  to  intensify  greatly  the 
sectional  controversy  before  the  bulk  of  the  Georgia 
Whigs  could  realize  that  they  too  must  swing  to  the 
party  that  Calhoun  and  Colquitt  had  joined  in  1840, 
and  to  which  a  few  Whigs  like  Berrien  and  Smythe 
went  over  in  1850. 

As  the  Whigs  inclined  more  and  more  towards 
nationalism  as  a  result  of  all  the  circumstances  noted, 
and  the  Democrats  inclined  more  and  more  towards 
particularism  as  a  result  of  the  influence  of  the  Cal- 
hounites,  it  began  to  look  as  if  each  party  had  just 
reversed  its  stand  of  nullification  days.  By  1846  it 
was  the  Whig  party  that  was  talking  “federalism” 
and  “protection,”  while  the  Democratic  party  was  more 
apt  to  declare  the  “sovereign  rights”  of  Georgia.  The 
old  party  names  of  “State-Rights”  and  “Union”  had 
not  merely  lost  meaning,  they  had  become  essentially 

30  Russel  cites  as  evidence  of  what  he  considers  the  state-rights 
attitude  of  the  Georgia  Whigs  the  fact  that  they  failed,  while  in  control 
of  the  state  convention  of  1850,  to  deny  formally  the  constitutionality  of 
secession.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  Georgia  Whigs  did  right  strenuously 
deny  the  constitutionality  of  secession  only  a  few  months  after  the  state 
convention  met,  when  the  state  campaign  of  1851  first  made  the  “right  of 
secession”  a  paramount  issue.  See,  c.g.,  Savannah  Republican,  May  25, 
26  and  27;  July  25,  September  6,  1851.  There  could  hardly  have  been  a 
paper  in  the  lower  South  more  strenuously  opposed  to  the  state-rights 
dogma  in  1850  than  the  Augusta  Chronicle,  one  of  the  most  influential  of 
the  Georgia  Whig  papers,  whose  editor  declared  that  a  state  could  no 
more  secede  from  the  Union  than  could  a  county  from  a  state.  Governor 
Towns  estimated  in  1850  that  “19-20ths  of  the  old  state-rights  group  are 
submissionists,”  Towns  to  Seabrook,  September  25,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 


MAP  NO.  S 


Reproduced,  by  permission,  from  map  in  U.  B.  Phillip’s  Georgia  and  State  Rights. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  109 


false  and  misleading-.  Each  party,  of  course,  was 
quick  to  see  the  change  which  had  come  over  the  other 
and  was  loud  in  its  condemnation  of  its  opponent’s 
inconsistency,  the  while  it  ignored  its  own.  The  re¬ 
versal  of  attitudes  involved  was,  indeed,  a  curious  and 
remarkable  one,  and,  coming  as  it  did  within  the  life¬ 
time  of  one  generation  of  leaders,  it  laid  these  gentle¬ 
men  open  constantly  to  the  charge  of  inconsistency. 
Their  past  utterances,  naturally  embarrassing,  were 
ever  at  the  beck  and  call  of  their  enemies,  and  the 
easiest  defence  was  to  return  the  compliment  in  kind. 
Charges  and  counter-charges  were  complicated  by  the 
fact  that  each  party  contained  within  itself  a  minority 
element  that  had  maintained  consistency;  namely,  the 
Union-Democrats  and  the  small  group  of  state-rights 
Whigs,  and  these  minorities  voiced  from  within  the 
parties  the  same  criticisms  that  the  opposition  hurled 
from  without.31 

Despite  all  these  conflicting  elements  within  the 
parties  and  the  shifts  which  led  to  them,  the  economic 
basis  of  the  two  groups  remained  much  the  same  in 
1844  as  it  had  been  in  1834.  The  Democratic  party, 
like  the  old  Clark-Union  party,  had  the  support  of  the 
poorer  whites.  The  Whig,  like  the  old  Troup  party, 
was  the  planters’  party  and  strongest  in  Coastal  and 
Central  Georgia  in  the  plantation  areas.  In  other 
words,  the  constitutional  problem  which  has  been  de¬ 
scribed  was  not  the  determining  issue  in  the  formation 
or  development  of  the  parties,  but  a  temporary  ques¬ 
tion  which  realigned  minorities  rather  than  the  bulk 
of  the  one  party  or  the  other.  In  any  period  of  con- 

“  For  examples  of  these  confused  charges  of  inconsistency  see  e.g., 
Savannah  Georgian,  May  23,  1848;  Savannah  Republican,  May  25,  1848; 
J.  B.  Lamar,  February  27,  1851,  to  the  Committee,  The  Macon  Union 
Celebration,  p.  25. 


110 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


stitutional  crisis,  however,  such  a  realignment  of  a 
minority  of  one  party  with  the  other  might  be  the  de¬ 
termining  factor  in  an  outcome  of  both  economic  and 
political  significance.  This  was  especially  apt  to  be 
true  of  a  state  like  Georgia,  in  which  the  two  parties 
were  of  about  equal  strength  in  normal  years. 

That  the  bulk  of  the  two  parties  were  distributed 
in  the  areas  noted  is  clearly  shown  in  the  results  of  the 
elections  between  1844  and  1849  ;32  that  within  these 
areas  they  represented  the  classes  stated  is  amply 
demonstrated  by  contemporary  recognition.  It  is  true 
that  the  Georgia  papers  were  not  as  extreme  in  their 
statements  on  this  subject  as  were  some  in  the  Gulf 
states,  but  it  was  sometimes  asserted  that  the  majority 
of  the  planters  were  Whigs  and  the  poorer  farmers 
usually  Democrats.  While  the  Montgomery  Alabama 
Journal  declared  that  the  Whigs  owned  seven  eights 
■of  the  slaves  in  the  South,33  the  Columbus  (Georgia) 
Times  modestly  observed  that  “the  Whigs  of  Georgia, 
It  is  believed,  hold  more  slaves  than  the  Democrats.” 
Again  it  remarked :  “the  Whigs  of  Georgia  have  the 
property  .  .  .”34  The  Times  was  a  Democratic 
journal  and  may  have  wished  to  minimize  such  state¬ 
ments,  lest  they  be  used  to  prove  the  Whigs  “sound” 
upon  slavery  interests;  hence  its  “confession,”  as  a 
Whig  journal  termed  it,  was  rather  significant.35  Yet 
Whig  statements  were  also  modest  in  their  estimates, 
one  declaring  simply  that  they  owned  “as  many 
negroes”  as  the  Democrats.36 

o 

32  See  maps  in  Cole,  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South. 

33  September  2,  1850. 

34  Columbus  Times,  July  13  and  27,  1849;  see  also  the  Federal  Union, 
October  30,  1849. 

35  Augusta  Chronicle,  July  20,  1849. 

39  Savannah  Republican,  June  23,  1849. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  111 


On  the  other  hand,  Whig  journals  in  Georgia 
pointed  with  scorn  to  the  fact  that  the  poorest  and 
most  ignorant  whites  were  the  mainstay  of  the  Demo¬ 
cracy.  The  belief  that  economic  improvement  and 
education  would  make  Whigs  out  of  Democrats  was 
one  motive  behind  the  Whig  clamor  for  educational 
improvement.  The  Whigs  cannot  triumph,  it  was  de¬ 
clared,  until  “education  dispells  the  darkness  from  the 
sequestered  regions,  where  common  schools,  churches, 
newspapers  and  postoffices  are  far  between.  In  these 
is  the  home  of  unadulterated  Democracy  in  Georgia.”37 
A  northern  Whig  editor  held  the  same  opinion,  claim¬ 
ing  that  the  greater  number  of  Georgia  Democrats 
were  the  “corn-crackers”  and  “the  inhabitants  of  the 
uncultivated  portions.”38  During  the  political  strug¬ 
gle  of  1850,  the  Whigs  constantly  insisted  that  the 
majority  of  the  Democrats,  who  were  associated  with 
the  southern-rights  movement,  were  “people  of  no 
consequence.” 

In  answer  to  this  charge,  the  Democrats  made  a 
reply  which  should  be  noted.  While  being  proud  of 
their  association  with  the  good  common  people,  they 
hastened  to  point  out  what  has  been  stated  in  a  previ¬ 
ous  chapter;  namely,  that  there  were  many  individual 
Democrats  of  wealth  and  influence.  In  their  effort  to 
show  this,  indeed,  they  succeeded  in  proving  almost 
too  much ;  that  is,  that  most  of  their  own  leaders  were 
wealthy  men  like  the  Whigs.  They  were  usually  plant¬ 
ers,  or  professional  men  associated  with  planters.39 

37  Augusta  Chronicle,  July  21,  1849.  For  proof  of  the  truth  of  this 
statement,  cf.  maps  showing  distribution  of  (1)  illiteracy  and  (2)  the 
parties,  pp.  24  and  109. 

38  Oneida  (N.  Y.)  Herald,  in  the  Federal  Union,  October  30,  1849. 

38  The  list  includes  such  leaders  as  the  Cobbs,  Colquitt,  McAllister, 
Towns,  McDonald,  Chappell,  Judge  Andrews,  Judge  Warner  (of  north¬ 
ern  origin),  W.  C.  Daniell,  R.  D.  Arnold,  the  editors  of  the  Federal 
Union  and  the  Savannah  Georgian,  etc.  Joseph  E.  Brown  was  an  ex¬ 
ception,  he  having  come  from  the  small  farmer  class. 


112 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Their  presence  in  the  Democratic  party  can  be  ascribed 
to  political  aspirations,  to  honest  liberalism,  and  to  the 
state-rights  issue.  This  last  had  brought  in  the  small 
group  of  planters  led  by  McAllister  and  Colquitt,  who 
belonged  to  the  type  of  planter  Democrats  then  domi¬ 
nant  in  South  Carolina.  Thus  McAllister,  the  coastal 
rice  planter,  although  a  leader  of  the  Democrats,  actu¬ 
ally  represented  the  most  exclusive  social  aristocracy 
in  the  state.  Howell  Cobb,  on  the  other  hand,  repre¬ 
sented  a  type  of  Democratic  planter  who  merged  politi¬ 
cal  aspirations  with  an  apparently  genuine  sympathy 
for  the  poorer  farming  classes. 

The  Democrats,  of  course,  always  claimed  that  they 
represented  the  good  common  people.  In  the  early 
thirties  the  Clark  party  had  shown  in  its  political  pro¬ 
gram  a  real  desire  to  democratize  the  state’s  govern¬ 
ment.  When,  for  instance,  it  secured  control  of  the 
convention  called  in  1833  to  amend  the  constitution, 
its  members  voted  in  that  body  for  an  amendment  pro¬ 
viding  the  “white  basis,”  rather  than  the  “federal 
ratio”  basis,  for  representation  in  the  state  legislature. 
This  was  a  move  then  in  demand  in  the  southern  states 
by  the  poorer  whites,  who  desired  to  take  from  the 
planter  class  its  large  representation  based  upon  the 
slave  population  in  the  plantation  areas.  The  Whigs 
opposed  it  on  the  specious  ground  that  it  was  an 
attack  upon  slavery  and  one  that  would  tempt  the  na¬ 
tional  government  also  to  abandon  the  “federal  ratio,” 
to  the  detriment  of  all  southern  representation  in  Con¬ 
gress.  Upon  being  submitted  to  a  referendum,  it  was 
defeated,  the  Whigs  claiming  that  “fully  10,000  Demo¬ 
crats”  joined  them  in  opposing  the  measure.40  The 

40  Augusta  Chronicle,  April  12,  1849;  for  the  “white  basis”  issue  in 
the  state  constitutional  conventions,  see  Journal  of  a  General  Convention 
of  the  State  of  Georgia,  1833,  p.  22;  Journal  of  the  Convention  to  Re- 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  113 


Clark  party  did,  however,  succeed  in  putting  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  the  governor  in  the  hands  of  the  people  and  in 
establishing  manhood  suffrage  for  the  whites. 

In  the  forties,  the  Democrats  continued  to  declare 
themselves  the  peoples’  party,  but  there  was  little 
evidence  of  serious  effort  towards  further  political 
reform.  The  demand  for  the  white  basis  of  repre¬ 
sentation  was  not  often  raised  in  the  latter  part  of  the 
decade.  A  number  of  interesting  and  relatively  radical 
changes  were  sometimes  advocated  by  Democrats,  but 
no  serious  effort  was  made  to  secure  them.  Some,  for 
instance,  desired  the  popular  election  of  judges  and  of 
the  national  president.  The  Athens  Banner,  an  ener¬ 
getic  Democratic  journal,  even  suggested  the  abolition 
of  the  state  senate,  on  the  ground  that  it  was  an 
undemocratic  feature  of  the  machinery  of  legislation.41 

There  was  a  continuous  exchange  of  general 
charges  between  the  two  parties  concerning  their  re¬ 
latively  democratic  and  conservative  positions.  An 
interesting  illustration  of  this  occurred  in  connection 
with  the  local  reaction  to  the  French  Revolution  of 
1848.  The  association  of  Louis  Blanc  and  the  social¬ 
ists  with  this  movement  led  northern  Whig  papers  to 
condemn  it,  the  Newport  (Rhode  Island)  News,  for 
instance,  declaring  that  Louis  Phillipe  had  been  over¬ 
thrown  for  “slight  and  transient  causes”  by  the  “worst 

duce  and  Equalise  the  Representation  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the 
State  of  Georgia,  1839,  p.  44.  While  the  convention  of  ’33  passed  the 
“white  basis”  resolution,  126  to  122,  it  was  overwhelmingly  defeated 
when  brought  up  again  in  that  of  ’39,  by  a  vote  of  192  to  83 ;  i.e.,  the 
Democracy  had  abandoned  it  by  the  end  of  the  decade.  For  interesting 
comment  on  the  struggle  over  this  issue  in  the  convention  see  J.  Living¬ 
ston,  “Judge  Nisbet  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Georgia,”  Biographical 
Sketches  of  Eminent  American  Lawyers,  Pt.  IV,  548-558.  The  “white 
basis”  demand  emanated  from  Upper  Georgia  and  the  poorer  white 
counties  in  other  sections.  This  situation  was  analogous  to  that  obtain¬ 
ing  in  Virginia  and  other  southern  states. 

41  Augusta  Chronicle,  July  21,  1849. 


114 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


kind  of  radicalism — rank  Dorrism.”42  The  Georgia 
Whig  press  also  found  little  to  sympathize  with  in  the 
revolution.  The  Democratic  papers,  however,  eulo¬ 
gized  it  as  a  splendid  republican  achievement.  The 
Savannah  Georgian  agreed  with  the  Philadelphia 
Pennsylvanian  that  ‘‘Human  rights  and  Whiggery — 
Dorrism  and  despotism — are  extreme  opposites  as  are 
the  poles.”43  Democratic  journals  advocated  the  theo¬ 
retical  right  of  revolution,  while  the  Whigs  condemned 
this  view,  as  making  for  dangerous  radicalism. 

One  feels,  however,  that  he  is  here  dealing  with  a 
useful  tradition  rather  than  with  an  issue.  The  Demo¬ 
cratic  party  of  necessity  cherished  this  tradition  in 
appealing  to  its  mass  of  small  farmer  supporters  and 
often  used  it  effectively  against  the  Whigs.  Yet  its 
own  leadership,  as  has  been  noted,  had  come  largely 
into  the  hands  of  the  well-to-do  class,  which  had  no 
intention  in  the  late  forties  of  any  radical  reforms. 
The  Whigs  simply  had  to  avoid  any  affront  to  this 
tradition,  lest  it  be  used  by  the  Democrats  against 
them.  Occasionally  a  particularly  courageous  Whig 
leader  would  openly  challenge  it.  “The  Terrible 
Toombs,”  usually  more  of  a  fighter  than  a  philosopher, 
was  strongly  criticised  during  the  bitter  campaign  of 
1851  for  his  wealth  and  apparent  aristocracy.  The 
people  of  Elbert  County,  for  instance,  condemned  his 
display  of  horses  and  servants  as  he  campaigned  the 
country.  In  reply,  he  admitted  that  he  made  more  than 
five  thousand  dollars  a  year  in  that  county  alone. 

42  A  reference  to  the  “Dorr  Rebellion”  in  Rhode  Island  for  demo¬ 
cratic  political  reforms.  There  is  an  obvious  analog}'  between  the  way 
in  which  the  Whig  and  Democratic  papers  reacted  to  this  Revolution  of 
1848  and  the  manner  in  which  Federalist  and  Republican  ones  had  re¬ 
acted  to  that  of  1789-1800. 

43  Georgian,  May  7,  1849. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  115 


“Who  would  say  he  had  not  earned  it?  He  had  a  right 
to  spend  it  as  he  chose.  Perish  such  demagoguery — 
such  senseless  stuff!”44  Toombs  has  also  been  cred¬ 
ited  with  the  remark,  “We  are  the  gentlemen,”  made 
in  reference  to  the  southern  planter  class.45  Georgia 
planters,  however,  were  usually  careful  not  to  display 
in  political  circles  such  notions  of  aristocracy  as  they 
might  possess. 

Indeed,  the  Whig  planters  never  abandoned  the 
claim  that  they  themselves  were  the  heirs  of  the  demo¬ 
cratic  tradition.  This  had  been  a  useful  claim  in  the 
“log  cabin”  campaign  of  1840  in  Georgia  and  else¬ 
where.  They  even  accused  the  Democrats  of  the  taint 
of  aristocracy  whenever  the  latter  were  careless 
enough  to  lay  themselves  open  to  such  a  charge. 
Democrats  were  accustomed,  for  instance,  to  claim  that 
the  worst  aristocracy  in  the  state  was  that  of  the  rice 
planters  of  the  old  conservative  seaboard.  Yet,  in  1845, 
they  ran  McAllister,  one  of  these  same  planters  and  a 
Calhoun  Democrat,  for  the  governorship.  The  Whig 
papers  immediately  attacked  him  as  an  aristocrat  and 
implied  that  their  political  enemies  were  dominated  by 
high  snobbery.  One  of  them  referred  to  McAllister  as 
“an  aristocrat  who  has  no  sympathy  with  the  people. 
He  belongs  to  that  class  in  Savannah  known  as 
‘Swelled  Heads’  who  think  the  up-country  people  no 
better  than  brutes.  .  .  .  Why  it  will  kill  him  to  be  so 
far  back  in  the  woods  as  Milledgeville.  He  will  never 
stand  the  up-country  crackers  and  the  lack  of  his 
favorite  brands  of  wine.”  There  was  a  degree  of  truth 
in  this  statement,  and  it  well  illustrates  the  embarrass¬ 
ment  under  which  the  Democrats  sometimes  labored  as 

44  Quoted  by  Stoval,  Robert  Toombs,  p.  90. 

46  See  Gamaliel  Bradford,  Confederate  Portraits,  p.  196. 


116 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


a  result  of  admitting  the  Calhoun  planters  to  the  party 
in  1840. 4 6 

This  social  criticism  may  have  been  one  factor  in 
McAllister’s  defeat  by  Crawford  in  this  campaign. 
When  the  next  election  came,  in  1847,  however,  the 
Whigs  nominated  Clinch,  another  rice  planter,  and  the 
Democrats,  in  opposing  him,  simply  duplicated  the 
Whig  attack  upon  McAllister.47  In  other  words,  the 
politicians  of  both  parties  saw  in  the  Democratic 
dogma  little  more  than  a  popular  shibboleth,  to  which 
it  was  useful  to  render  lip  service  upon  appropriate 
occasions. 

This,  at  least,  is  the  conclusion  that  one  would  gain 
from  the  party  press.  In  Georgia,  as  elsewhere,  the 
papers  of  the  day  were  an  important  influence  in  politi¬ 
cal  life.  The  period  between  1830  and  1850  saw  the 
first  full  blossomings  of  so-called  “personal  journal¬ 
ism,”  when,  in  a  state  like  Georgia,  the  papers  were 
small  affairs,  whose  owners,  editors,  and  publishers 
were  often  one  and  the  same  person.  In  a  few  of  the 
larger  towns,  however,  such  as  Augusta  and  Savan¬ 
nah,  the  editorial  staffs  were  in  1850  differentiated 
from  the  owners.  This  was  true,  for  instance,  of  the. 
Savannah  Georgian  and  Republican  and  of  the  Aug¬ 
usta  Chronicle. 

Each  town  of  any  size  had  two  journals  in  1850, 
one  Democratic  and  the  other  Whig,  and  in  both  Sa¬ 
vannah  and  Columbus  there  were  in  1850  two  Demo¬ 
cratic  papers,48  although  these  towns  each  numbered 
under  ten  thousand  population.  In  Augusta  there  were 

44  In  Savannah  Georgian,  July  7,  1847. 

47 Federal  Union,  July  27,  and  August  10,  1847. 

48  The  Savannah  News  and  Georgian;  the  Columbus  Times  and 
Sentinel.  The  News  was  “independent”  but  it  tended  towards  Democratic 
views. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  117 


two  Whig  papers,  the  Chronicle  and  the  Republic,  and 
also  two  in  Macon,  the  Journal  and  the  Citizen.  Under 
these  circumstances,  circulations  were  usually  not  large 
in  the  towns  and  were  especially  small  in  the  Pine  Bar¬ 
rens  and  Upper  Georgia,  where  illiteracy  was  com¬ 
mon  and  the  “newspaper  habit”  had  never  been  gener¬ 
ally  formed.  Most  of  the  papers  were  weeklies,  though 
those  in  Augusta  ran  daily,  tri-weekly  and  weekly 
editions;  the  Columbus  Times,  a  tri-weekly  as  well  as  a 
weekly  edition ;  and  the  Savannah  papers,  only  daily 
editions.  Daily  and  tri-weekly  editions  had  a  very 
much  smaller  circulation  than  the  weekly.  Thus  the 
daily  Augusta  Constitutionalist  had  a  circulation  of 
about  four  hundred,  the  tri-weekly,  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty,  and  the  weekly,  of  three  thousand.  The 
only  daily  in  the  state  whose  patrons  exceeded  one 
thousand  in  number  in  1850  was  the  Savannah  News, 
founded  only  in  that  year,  but  blessed  with  a  rapid 
growth  because  it  represented  a  new  business  venture 
— the  cheap  newspaper. 

The  Whig  and  Democratic  weeklies  were  not  evenly 
balanced  in  their  circulation,  that  of  the  Whigs  in  the 
larger  towns  usually  being  slightly  the  greater,  as 
would  be  expected.  Among  them,  the  weekly  Augusta 
Chronicle  had  in  1850  by  far  the  largest  circulation  of 
any  paper  in  the  state,  about  fifty-four  hundred,  save 
that  of  its  own  agricultural  monthly,  which  reached 
about  eight  thousand  subscribers.  The  Augusta  Re¬ 
public,  the  other  Whig  paper,  was  taken  by  three  thous¬ 
and  subscribers,  which  means  that  the  Whig  papers  of 
that  city  reached  almost  three  times  as  many  readers 
as  did  the  Democratic.  In  Macon,  likewise  in  the  heart 
of  the  cotton  belt,  the  Whig  readers  of  the  Journal  and 
the  Citizen  were  more  than  twice  the  number  of  the 


118 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Democratic  readers  of  the  Telegraph.  In  Columbus, 
the  Whig  Enquirer  had  a  larger  circulation  than  either 
of  its  Democratic  rivals,  and  only  in  Milledgeville  did 
the  Democratic  Federal  Union  lead  the  Whig  Southern 
Recorder  by  a  narrow  margin,  three  thousand  to 
twenty-eight  hundred.  In  Athens  and  Rome  the  party 
papers  were  evenly  balanced  in  circulation,  although 
the  Democrats  had  the  larger  following  in  this  north¬ 
west  section.  The  papers  in  the  smaller  towns  reached 
five  hundred  subscribers  or  less.  There  was  a  smaller 
number  of  papers  in  proportion  to  total  white  popu¬ 
lation  in  Georgia  than  was  the  case  in  the  South  as  a 
whole  (there  were  not  more  than  about  thirty  political 
papers  in  the  state  in  1850),  but  this  meant  in  some 
cases  a  larger  circulation  per  paper.  The  total  circula¬ 
tion  of  all  the  papers  carrying  political  news  in  the 
state  in  1850  probably  reached  about  twenty  to  twenty- 
five  thousand  subscribers  out  of  a  total  white  popula¬ 
tion  of  some  five  hundred  thousand.  These  facts  sug¬ 
gest  that  scarcely  half  of  the  literate  white  men  read 
the  newspapers,  and  that  at  least  a  slight  majority  of 
these  received  the  Whig  version.49  In  the  northwest, 
the  Democratic  majority  received  its  political  educa¬ 
tion  as  much  through  the  barbecue  and  the  court  house 
gathering  as  it  did  through  the  press.  The  fact  that  a 
majority  of  the  illiterate  males  were  Democrats  prob¬ 
ably  accounts  for  the  smaller  circulation  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  journals. 

48  The  facts  here  stated  are  based  upon  J.  C.  G.  Kennedy,  Catalogue 
of  the  newspapers  and  periodicals  published  in  the  United  States,  etc., 
included  as  an  appendix  to  J.  Livingston,  Law  Register  for  1850  (New 
York,  1852).  Kennedy  is  not  entirely  reliable,  but  can  be  checked  to 
some  extent  by  current  press  data.  See  also  Ingle,  op.  cit.,  p.  155. 
George  White  listed  thirty-one  political  papers  in  Georgia  in  1851, 
Augusta  Chronicle,  June  19,  1852. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  119 


Personal  journalism  in  Georgia,  as  elsewhere,  in¬ 
dulged  in  lurid  rhetoric  and  flowing  phrase.  The  rival 
papers  in  each  town  kept  up  a  running  controversy 
that  in  serious  times  assumed  a  very  bitter  tone.  This 
was  true  of  even  the  best  papers.  The  editors  of  the 
Augusta  Constitutionalist ,  for  instance,  publicly  de¬ 
manded  in  1850  that  those  of  the  Chronicle  be  forced 
to  resign,  while  a  number  of  Democratic  papers  in  the 
same  year  insisted  that  the  Whig  Macon  Citizen  be 
suppressed  and  the  owner  run  out  of  the  state.  The 
Georgian  was  of  the  gentle  opinion  that  the  entire 
Whig  press  was  “absolutely  corrupt”  and  “wholly  and 
purely  a  political  thing.”50  Not  to  be  outdone  by  such 
Democratic  slanders,  the  Whig  editor  of  the  Recorder 
denounced  what  he  was  pleased  to  term  the  “rampant 
malignity  and  overleaping  licentiousness”  of  his  local 
rival.51  The  very  freedom  of  language  indulged  in  by 
opposing  editors,  however,  was  in  a  sense  a  measure  of 
the  general  liberty  enjoyed  by  the  press.  A  Georgia 
editor  of  1812  had  lost  his  presses  and  had  been  tarred 
and  feathered  for  opposing  the  war  of  that  year,52  but 
no  Whig  editor  was  in  any  danger  of  such  treatment 
for  opposing  the  Mexican  War.  The  editor  of  the 
Macon  Citizen  was,  however,  threatened  with  mob 
violence  and  his  paper  temporarily  suspended  in  1850 
for  assuming  what  was  termed  an  antislavery  at¬ 
titude.53 

M  Georgian,  April  14,  1848. 

61 Federal  Union,  April  27,  1847. 

52  Ibid. 

H  Georgian.  August  24;  Chronicle,  August  30;  Boston  Liberator,  Sep¬ 
tember  20,  1850.  The  Chronicle  was  also  threatened,  but  the  Federal 
Union  (April  27,  1847)  assured  it  that  there  was  now  a  greater  freedom 
of  the  press  than  there  had  been  a  generation  earlier,  and  that  it  was 
therefore  in  no  danger. 


120 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  Georgia  press  is,  of  course,  important  as  an 
indication  of  what  public  sentiment  was  in  the  state, 
but  it  needs  to  be  used  with  considerable  caution  in  this 
connection.  The  personal  character  of  newspaper 
management  meant  that  editorials  expressed  primarily 
the  opinions  of  editors  and  party  leaders  rather  than 
those  of  the  general  public.  It  was  true  that 
in  normal  times  public  opinion  would  follow  that  of 
these  same  party  leaders  and  would  thus  coincide  with 
the  views  expressed  by  the  press.  In  times  of  crisis, 
however,  it  was  quite  possible  for  politicians  and  edi¬ 
tors  to  attempt  to  lead  the  masses  in  a  direction  they 
were  loath  to  follow.  There  was  more  mental  inertia 
among  readers  than  among  editors,  and  the  latter  were, 
therefore,  apt  to  be  far  out  in  front  of  thefcrQwd  in  a 
period  of  mental  transition.  In  such  times,  excited 
editor-owners  were  quite  capable  of  seeing  public  opin¬ 
ion  through  their  own  eyes  and  of  making  the  most 
extravagant  claims  that  the  people  were  with  them — 
only  to  have  subsequent  events  completely  disprove 
their  statements.  In  the  fall  of  1850,  for  instance,  a 
few  papers  with  a  small  circulation,  like  the  Columbus 
Sentinel,  made  the  most  bitter  attacks  upon  the  Union. 
It  does  not  at  all  follow  from  such  evidence  that  these 
attacks  represented  a  sentiment  prevalent  in  the  state, 
or  even  in  Columbus.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  other 
evidence  shows  that  they  represented  no  such  thing. 

The  best  checks  upon  the  press  as  a  measure  of 
public  opinion  would  seem  to  be  the  circulation  figures 
of  the  particular  papers  being  considered  and  the  re¬ 
sults  of  subsequent  elections.  Circulation  figures 
would  also  seem  to  be  significant  as  a  criterion  of  the 
influence  exerted  by  the  press  upon  public  sentiment. 
It  is  at  least  fair  to  assume  that  the  weekly  Chronicle, 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  121 


with  a  circulation  of  over  five  thousand,  exerted  a 
greater  influence  than  any  of  the  Democratic  journals, 
whose  circulation  never  exceeded  about  three  thousand 
in  this  period.  So,  too,  the  Chronicle  may  have  been 
more  influential  than  the  daily  Savannah  Republican, 
(whose  circulation  was  less  than  one  thousand),  for  the 
Augusta  paper  had  a  daily  edition  which  reached  ap¬ 
proximately  five  hundred  subscribers  in  addition  to  its 
large  weekly  one.54 

The  chief  influence  exerted  upon  public  political 
thinking,  other  than  that  of  the  press,  was  that  of  the 
discussions  held  at  “county  caucuses,”  district  conven¬ 
tions,  public  barbecues,  courthouse  gatherings  and 
other  political  meetings.  The  influence  of  such  meet¬ 
ings  must  often  have  been  more  potent  than  that  of  the 
press,  since  they  were  more  dramatic  and  exciting  and 
must  have  appealed  powerfully  to  a  people  who  found 
in  partisan  politics  a  natural  diversion  from  monoton¬ 
ous  routine.  “Small  lawyers  and  still  smaller  poli¬ 
ticians”  thrived  upon  them,  and  there  were  few  dis¬ 
tricts  in  Georgia  where,  in  times  of  excitement,  there 
were  not  several  opportunities  annually  to  attend  such 
gatherings.  Their  peculiar  importance  in  illiterate  dis¬ 
tricts  has  already  been  noted,  and  indeed  the  great  role 
they  played  in  Georgia  politics  generally  can  be  attrib¬ 
uted  in  part  to  the  semi-frontier  conditions  obtaining  in 
parts  of  the  state.55  It  has  been  observed,  of  course, 
that  the  whole  South  “suffered  from  too  much  cam¬ 
paigning,”  which  always  involved  such  meetings,56 

“  Livington,  op.  cit.  It  is  to  be  remembered  in  this  connection  that 
the  Whig  papers  with  the  largest  circulation  also  reached  the  most 
influential  elements. 

65  “Stump  speaking,”  it  is  claimed,  had  in  the  old  days  of  “grocery 
treats”  been  considered  somewhat  “common,”  but  was  coming  into  vogue 
by  1847  for  even  the  most  prominent  politicians.  See  Andrews,  Remin- 
inscences,  p.  22. 

M  Ingle,  Southern  Sidelights,  pp.  39,  41,  42. 


122 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


and  this  is  no  doubt  true.  Yet  it  would  have  been  a 
cruel  mentor  who  would  have  taken  their  politics  from 
these  people. 

The  even  balance  of  the  parties  in  Georgia  made 
campaigning  there  an  even  more  exciting  diversion 
than  in  some  of  the  other  southern  states.  Elections 
were  always  closely  contested  and  slight  defections, 
based,  as  was  said,  upon  the  appearance  of  superfluous 
candidates  or  of  some  subtle  constitutional  issue,  might 
determine  the  final  result.  This  fact,  combined  with 
the  temper  of  the  voters,  made  the  Georgia  elections 
unusually  hot  affairs.  Arnold  describes  the  way  in 
which  the  Irish  lined  up  with  their  shillalahs  at  the 
Savannah  polls  in  order  to  encourage  all  “good”  voters; 
namely,  Democrats — and  Arnold  was  himself  a  Demo¬ 
crat  1  Feeling  became  unusually  tense  during  the 
critical  struggle  of  1849-51.  A  Carolinian  passing 
through  the  state  in  the  latter  year  observed  that 
“We  in  South  Carolina  talk  about  political  excite¬ 
ment  but  we  do  not  know  until  we  come  here  what 
excitement  is.”57 

Any  discussion  of  public  opinion  in  the  state  is 
incomplete  without  some  reference  to  the  party  leaders. 
These  leaders,  it  has  already  been  observed,  had  ex¬ 
cellent  opportunities  for  moulding  public  opinion ;  first, 
through  their  influence  over  a  press  which  zealously 
printed  their  speeches  and  other  sayings,  and,  second, 
through  the  political  meetings  which  were  the  order  of 
the  day.  The  population  which  concerned  most  poli¬ 
ticians  was  relatively  small,  and  leaders  who  traveled 
widely  through  the  counties  could  make  a  personal 
appeal  to  most  of  their  constituents.  This  was  of  con¬ 
siderable  potency  with  a  people  who  had  not  entirely 

" Incidents  of  a  Journey  from  Abbeville  to  Ocola  (1851),  p.  11. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  123 


outlived  an  age  when  politics  had  been  almost  purely 
personal  and  who  relished  politics  as  a  sport  necessarily 
involving  intense  loyalties  if  it  was  to  be  completely 
enjoyed.  In  a  word,  conditions  seemed  rather  ideal 
for  the  political  domination  of  the  state  by  a  few  out¬ 
standing  personalities.  It  is  doubtless  a  fair  assump¬ 
tion  that  under  such  circumstances  leaders  were  bound 
to  arise;  hence,  in  Georgia,  Troup,  Clark,  and  Craw¬ 
ford  appeared  in  the  twenties,  and  Cobb,  Toombs,  and 
Stephens  flourished  in  the  forties. 

The  influence  of  these  leaders  was  so  great  that 
there  is,  indeed,  some  danger  of  exagerating  it,  some 
temptation  to  assume  that  they  directed  all  things  in 
Georgia  politics.  Much  the  same  caution  needs  to  be 
observed  in  estimating  their  influence  upon  public  opin¬ 
ion  as  is  necessary  in  judging  the  influence  of  the  press. 
In  times  of  crisis  and  transition,  the  individual  leader 
was  apt  to  change  opinions  more  rapidly  than  could  the 
relatively  inert  masses,  not  only  because  he  was  giving 
more  time  and  effort  to  the  study  of  the  new  political 
phenomena  involved  in  the  crises,  but  also  because,  if 
he  was  an  office-holder,  he  was  apt  to  be  subjected  to 
greater  political  stimulation  and  excitement  than  was 
the  man  back  on  the  farm.  In  such  times,  the  poli¬ 
tician,  like  the  editor,  might  move  so  rapidly  in  his 
advance  to  new  viewpoints  that  he  ceased  to  keep  in 
touch  with,  to  guide,  or  to  represent  the  masses.  It 
then  became  simply  a  question  as  to  whether  they  would 
eventually  catch  up  with  him,  or  whether  he  would  have 
to  go  back  to  them,  if  he  was  to  maintain  influence  and 
office.  Examples  of  both  types  of  action  are  to  be  ob¬ 
served  in  the  Georgia  politics  of  the  transition  period 
about  to  be  considered. 


124 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Party  leaders,  while  influencing  the  viewpoints  of 
constituents,  did  not  control  the  machinery  of  their 
party  organizations  in  Georgia  to  the  extent  that  politi¬ 
cal  “bosses”  have  in  many  states  during  the  post- 
bellum  period.  Senators  and  representatives,  to  be 
sure,  directed  the  distribution  of  federal  patronage  in 
the  state,58  and  the  governor  naturally  had  some  influ¬ 
ence  over  the  state  patronage.  The  governors  them¬ 
selves,  however,  were  usually  men  of  ability  and  of 
some  political  independence  rather  than  the  tools  of 
bosses  behind  the  scenes.  Crawford  was  a  leader  of 
his  party,  and  McDonald  was  not  only  a  leader,  but  was 
capable  of  carrying  through  measures  condemned  by 
a  majority  of  his  political  associates.  The  state  legis¬ 
lature  was  not  dominated,  as  a  rule,  by  the  senators 
sent  to  Washington;  and  these  latter  sometimes  dis¬ 
played,  on  the  other  hand,  a  remarkable  independence 
of  the  assembly  at  Milledgeville.  Berrien’s  successful 
controversy  with  the  latter,  and  his  denial  of  “sena¬ 
torial  responsibility,”  is  an  obvious  illustration  of  such 
independence.59  Cobb’s  influence  in  “Cherokee”  and 
the  Upper-Piedmont  and  that  of  the  “Two  Insepara¬ 
bles”  in  the  Black  Belt  approximated  most  closely  that 
of  the  modern  boss,  but  by  no  means  fully  equalled  it. 

The  state,  indeed,  was  still  too  young  and  its  people 
consequently  too  much  attached  to  the  individualism 
of  the  frontier  to  permit  of  much  machine  control  of 
the  political  organizations.  Party  methods  and  organ¬ 
ization  were  imperfect  in  the  forties.  As  late  as  1848, 
for  instance,  there  was  still  considerable  opposition  in 
Georgia  to  the  nomination  of  presidential  candidates 

68  There  is  considerable  evidence  of  this  in  the  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence  (as  cited  above,  p.  72,  n.  24),  passim. 

“  Remarks  of  R.  D.  Arnold  on  the  Georgia  Legislature’s  Resolutions 
Against  Senator  Berrien,  passim. 


CONFLICT  AND  CONFUSION,  1824-1844  125 


by  national  party  conventions.  Nominations  for  state 
offices  were,  to  be  sure,  made  by  local  and  state  party 
conventions ;  but,  as  will  be  noted,  the  control  exercised 
by  these  meetings  over  nominations  was  never  a  com¬ 
plete  one. 

The  nomination  of  candidates  for  the  state  House 
of  Representatives  was  made  by  county  meetings  open 
to  party  members — by  “county  caucuses,”  as  these 
gatherings  came  to  be  called.  The  same  method  was 
used  for  the  nomination  and  election  of  delegates  to 
senatorial  district  conventions,  wherein  nominations 
for  state  senators  were  made,  two  counties  usually 
being  combined  to  form  such  a  district.  State  conven¬ 
tions  of  each  party  were  held  annually,  at  which  candi¬ 
dates  for  governor  were  nominated  and  resolutions  on 
policy  were  adopted.  Yet  within  the  counties  indi¬ 
viduals  continued  to  “come  out”  for  office  on  their  own 
initiative,  much  to  the  distress  of  the  party  leaders, 
as  this  often  meant  that  two  or  more  candidates  of 
the  same  party  ran  for  the  same  office.  Elections 
sometimes  hinged  upon  the  extent  to  which  each  party 
could  dissuade  such  overzealous  members  from  nomi¬ 
nating  themselves.  When,  for  instance,  the  Demo¬ 
crats  won  the  control  of  the  legislature  in  1847,  their 
journal  at  the  capital  thankfully  observed  that  “there 
was  an  unusually  small  number  of  supernumerary 
candidates  this  year.”60  This  tendency  towards  irreg¬ 
ular  candidacy  was  unusually  common  in  Georgia; 
“Father”  Ritchie,  of  the  Washington  Union,  observed 
it  with  considerable  astonishment.61 

'"‘Federal  Union ,  June  15,  1847;  see  also  issue  for  August  27,  1847. 
For  the  details  of  nominating  methods  see  the  Columbus  Enquirer,  July 
15,  1851. 

61  Federal  Union,  September  28,  1847. 


CHAPTER  IV 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 

The  chief  national  issue  in  state  politics  during  the 
thirties  had  been  that  relating  to  the  United  States 
Bank.  During  the  forties  this  ceased  to  be  an  issue,1 
the  renewal  of  tariff  agitation  pushing  that  problem 
into  the  forefront  of  political  controversy.2  Before 
the  excitement  over  the  tariff  and  National  Bank  ques¬ 
tions  had  died  down  in  Georgia,  a  new  problem  had 
arisen  which  was  destined  to  eclipse  both  of  these 
in  importance;  namely,  the  renewal  of  the  desire  for 
the  extension  of  slave  territory  in  the  west.  When 
Texas  first  requested  annexation  during  the  late  thir¬ 
ties,  there  was  no  opposition  from  either  party  in 
Georgia,  nor  was  there,  on  the  other  hand,  any  organ¬ 
ized  demand  for  its  admission  to  the  Union.  It  was 
assumed  that  it  should  be  annexed  in  the  course  of  the 
general  westward  movement.  Tyler’s  revival  of  the 
matter  in  1844  found  both  Whigs  and  Democrats  in 
favor  of  annexation.  The  presidential  campaign  of 

1  The  Whigs  continued  a  sort  of  academic  defence  of  the  Bank  through 
the  forties.  Problems  relating  to  banks  and  other  corporations  within 
the  state  also  divided  the  parties  during  that  decade,  the  Whigs  claiming 
to  be  the  best  friends  of  incorporated  business.  The  Georgia  Democrats, 
however,  had  come  under  conservative  leadership  to  such  an  extent  as  to 
prevent  their  offering  any  serious  opposition  to  banks  or  other  corpora¬ 
tions.  Indeed  Democratic  papers  sometimes  encouraged  the  formation 
of  manufacturing  companies,  though  they  opposed  granting  them  the 
.special  privileges  desired  by  the  Whigs.  See,  e.g.,  the  Milledgeville 
Federal  Union,  November  30,  1847,  January  4,  1848. 

2  The  state  election  of  1841  was  won  by  the  Democrats  upon  the  tariff 
issue,  and  the  victorious  party  attempted  unsuccessfully  to  prevent  the 
Whig  Senator,  Berrien,  from  supporting  Whig  tariffs  in  Congress.  See 
J.  A.  Turner,  “William  C.  Dawson,”  The  Plantation,  I.  No.  1,  82 ;  Re¬ 
marks  of  R.  D.  Arnold  on  the  Georgia  Legislature’s  Resolutions  Against 
Senator  Berrien  (Savannah,  1843),  p.  3. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


127 


that  year  brought  out  clearly  the  opposition  in  the 
North  to  any  further  extension  of  slave  territory  and, 
as  a  result,  aroused  new  desire  for  the  same  in  the 
South.3  This  was  at  first  expressed  in  Georgia  by 
both  parties,  the  Democrats  supporting  Polk,  who  was 
openly  for  annexation,  and  the  Whigs,  in  their  state 
convention  of  July,  1844,  adopting  Alexander  Steph¬ 
ens’  resolutions  favoring  future  annexation.4 

Meanwhile,  the  agitation  for  annexation  was  pro¬ 
ducing  more  serious  feeling  across  the  river  in  South 
Carolina  than  it  was  in  Georgia.  It  is  to  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  the  middle  forties  was  the  period  of  great¬ 
est  cumulative  economic  depression  in  the  South  and 
that  South  Carolina  had  suffered  more  than  had  the 
newer  states  of  the  lower  South.  This  economic  de¬ 
pression  quite  naturally  expressed  itself,  as  has  been 
noted  in  a  previous  chapter,  in  a  corresponding  depres¬ 
sion  of  mind.  Under  these  circumstances,  leaders  were 
apt  to  seek  an  explanation  of  their  difficulties  in  the 
machinations  of  northern  political  enemies  rather 
than  in  weaknesses  inherent  in  the  local  economic  sys¬ 
tem.  When,  therefore,  northern  antislavery  men 
attempted  in  1844  to  prevent  the  annexation  of  Texas, 
and,  to  add  insult  to  injury,  other  northerners  at¬ 
tempted  to  prevent  any  revision  of  the  Whig  tariff  of 
1842,  it  was  natural  that  certain  Carolina  leaders 
should  see  in  these  efforts  an  explanation  of  their  own 
difficulties.  Early  in  1844,  for  this  reason,  they  inau¬ 
gurated  a  militant  campaign  for  Texan  annexation  and 
tariff  reform,  and  by  June  of  that  year  they  began  for 

3  For  evidence  against  the  view  that  the  annexation  of  Texas  was 
originally  demanded  by  the  “Slavocracy”  see  C.  S.  Boucher,  “In  Re 
That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review, 
VIII.  23-25. 

4  M.  L.  Avary,  (Ed.),  Recollections  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  p.  17. 


128 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  first  time  openly  to  advocate  secession  as  the  only 
remedy  in  case  these  demands  were  not  granted.  South 
Carolina,  they  held,  should  not  preserve  a  union  which 
offered  her  nought  but  exploitation  and  insult.  This 
“Bluffton  Movement,”  as  it  came  to  be  called,  was  led 
by  such  capable  spokesmen  as  R.  B.  Rhett  and  was 
supported  by  such  powerful  papers  as  the  ever  zealous 
Mercury.  It  met  with  opposition,  however,  from  the 
equally  zealous  Courier 5  and  from  the  powerful  Cal¬ 
houn,  and  eventually  it  failed  to  receive  the  support  of 
a  majority,  even  in  the  Palmetto  State.6  Its  leaders, 
it  may  be  said  in  passing,  then  bided  their  time  until 
the  opposition  to  the  extension  of  slavery  in  the  newly 
acquired  Southwest  precipitated  a  sectional  struggle 
which  lent  their  secessionist  appeal  a  new  potency 
throughout  the  South.  Calhoun  then  joined  them  and 
led  this  more  serious  effort,  which  developed  into  the 
secession  movement  of  1850. 

The  Bluffton  Movement,  so  far  as  it  aimed  at  im¬ 
mediate  secession,  exerted  little  influence  in  Georgia, 
where  it  was  condemned  by  the  Whigs  and  by  many 
of  the  Democrats.7  Calhoun’s  influence  with  the  state- 
rights  element  in  the  Georgia  Democracy  was  such 
that  even  this  group  did  not  generally  support  it.  It 
doubtless  found  individual  sympathizers  among  this 
latter  group,  and  these  individuals  were  to  be  heard 
from  when  Calhoun  took  over  and  restimulated  the 

5  See,  e.g.,  the  Charleston  Courier,  June  29.  1844. 

6  For  general  descriptions  of  the  movement  see  C.  S.  Boucher,  “The 
Annexation  of  Texas  and  the  Bluffton  Movement  in  South  Carolina," 
Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  VI.  9,  ff. ;  N.  W.  Stephenson, 
Texas  and  the  Mexican  War,  pp.  168-176. 

7  Milledgeville  Federal  Union,  July  30,  1844;  Columbus  Enquirer.  July 
31,  1844.  The  Savannah  Republican  immediately  indicted  South  Carolina 
as  “the  center  of  all  the  heresies  that  disturb  the  nation,”  and  declared 
that  she  wished  to  be  “the  center  and  focus  of  the  new  Southern  Re¬ 
public” ;  Republican,  June  18,  1844. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


129 


movement  in  1847.  The  chief  influence  of  the  Bluff- 
ton  movement  itself  was  probably  to  increase  the 
prejudice  already  felt  in  Georgia  towards  South  Caro¬ 
lina  as  a  center  of  political  radicalism  and  disturbance. 

As  the  summer  of  1844  progressed,  however,  it 
became  apparent  that  the  general  agitation  in  favor  of 
the  annexation  of  Texas,  of  which  the  Bluffton  move¬ 
ment  was  the  most  extreme  expression,  would  affect 
the  presidential  campaign  in  Georgia.  While  the 
Whigs  had  expressed  formal  approval  of  annexation 
in  their  July  state  convention,  in  response  to  what 
seemed  the  general  public  sentiment  of  the  state,  some 
of  their  leaders  soon  realized  that  this  stand  would 
involve  them  in  difficulties  with  the  strong  antislavery 
element  in  the  northern  wing  of  their  party.  They 
therefore  refrained,  in  the  fall  of  1844,  from  empha¬ 
sizing  the  issue.  For  this  same  reason,  Clay,  the  Whig 
presidential  candidate,  maintained  a  somewhat  am¬ 
biguous  position  upon  the  annexation  question.  Con¬ 
versely,  the  Democrats  in  Georgia,  who  felt  that  they 
had  less  to  fear  from  their  northern  antislavery 
brethren,  emphasized  the  battle-cry  of  “southern 
rights”  in  Texas.  Polk,  their  national  candidate,  had 
openly  espoused  annexation.  In  the  course  of  the 
campaign,  a  few  of  the  more  extreme  Democrats,  echo¬ 
ing  the  Bluffton  agitation,  demanded  that  Texas  must 
be  had  with  or  without  the  Union.  This  effort  to 
exploit  sectional  loyalty  led  the  Whigs  to  raise  the  ap¬ 
peal  to  national  loyalty,  each  party  standing  ready 
then,  as  later,  to  make  whichever  appeal  seemed 
expedient.  The  Democrats,  the  Whigs  declared,  were 
secretly  harboring  disunion  sentiments.8  This  accusa¬ 
tion,  however,  did  not  save  the  day  for  the  Whigs. 

*  Savannah  Republican,  July  16,  1844. 


130 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Clay’s  ambiguity  on  the  annexation  question  and  his 
lack  of  personal  appeal  in  the  small  farmer  sections 
lost  him  the  state  in  November,  and  Polk  carried 
Georgia,  as  he  did  all  the  other  states  of  the  lower 
South. 

When  Congress  convened  in  the  winter  of  1844- 
1845,  the  southern  Whigs  found  themselves  approach¬ 
ing  a  choice  between  continuing  to  favor  annexation, 
as  the  apparent  desire  of  the  southern  people,  or 
opposing  it  in  order  to  avoid  an  issue  bound  to  alienate 
their  northern  allies.9  When,  therefore,  the  annex¬ 
ation  question  was  brought  up  by  the  victorious  Demo¬ 
crats,  it  found  the  Georgia  Whig  members  torn  by 
conflicting  emotions  and  divided  in  consequence.  Ber¬ 
rien,  in  the  Senate,  had  believed  for  years  that  any 
attempt  on  the  part  of  the  South  to  keep  pace  with  the 
North  in  territorial  expansion  was  hopeless.  He  saw 
in  the  Texas  movement,  therefore,  a  matter  which 
could  avail  the  South  nothing  and  which  might  arouse 
a  storm  over  slavery  that  would  divide  his  party.  He 
boldly  opposed  annexation  in  any  form,  arguing  at 
length  against  it  upon  technical  constitutional 
grounds.10  Colquitt,  his  colleague,  expressed  the  typical 
enthusiasm  of  the  Democrats  for  annexation  and 
found  it  difficult  to  believe  in  the  sincerity  of  Berrien’s 
technical  objections.11  In  the  House,  the  Democrats, 
Cobb  and  Haralson,  declared  the  recent  election  showed 
that  all  Georgians  favored  annexation.12  Stephens 
admitted  they  all  favored  the  principle,  but  expressed 

9  Toombs  to  Stephens,  February  16,  1845,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  64.  See  also  J.  W.  Burney  to  Howell  Cobb,  January 
31,  1845,  ibid.,  p.  62;  Junius  Hillyer  to  Cobb,  February  15,  1845,  ibid., 
p.  63. 

10  Congressional  Globe,  28  Congress,  2  Session,  pp.  343,  344. 

11  Ibid.,  pp.  347  ff. 

aIbid„  pp.  176-180. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


131 


the  typical  Whig  dislike  for  Tyler  in  declaring  that 
most  of  them  opposed  the  President’s  particular  plan 
of  annexation.  He  warned  the  House,  moreover,  that 
a  serious  struggle  over  slavery  was  apt  to  be  precipi¬ 
tated.  Yet  he  supported  annexation  by  joint  reso¬ 
lution  and  was  followed  in  this  by  Clinch  and  the  other 
Georgia  Whigs.13  Thus  Berrien  led  the  way  toward 
Whig  opposition  to  anything  threatening  a  renewal  of 
the  slavery  controversy,  while  Stephens  and  Clinch 
expressed  the  general  opinion  of  both  parties  in  Geor¬ 
gia  that  Texas  should  be  added  to  the  Union. 

When  the  War  with  Mexico  followed  annexation, 
the  dilemma  in  which  the  southern  Whigs  found  them¬ 
selves  became  more  acute.  The  war  was  almost  cer¬ 
tain  to  mean  further  expansion  and  this,  in  turn,  a 
serious  sectional  quarrel  over  the  status  of  slavery  in 
all  new  territory  acquired.  Such  a  quarrel  would  prob¬ 
ably  divide  the  Whig  party  along  sectional  lines.  On 
the  other  hand,  any  opposition  to  the  war  would  be  con¬ 
demned  by  the  Democrats  as  unpatriotic — a  charge 
that  any  party  would  ordinarily  wish  to  avoid. 

News  reached  Washington  in  May,  1846,  of  Zach¬ 
ary  Taylor’s  fight  on  the  Rio  Grande,  and  war  was 
declared  with  almost  no  opposition  in  Congress.  A 
momentary  patriotic  impulse  seemed  to  sweep  southern 
Whigs  as  well  as  Democrats  into  the  war  movement. 
The  Georgia  press  well  demonstrated  this  feeling  dur¬ 
ing  the  weeks  which  followed  the  declaration  of  war. 
Within  a  month,  however,  there  was  a  definite  reaction 
in  the  local  Whig  press,  and  editorials  attacking  the 
war  began  to  appear.14  Even  the  fear  of  opposing  a 
successful  war  was  not  so  great  as  the  fear  of  what 

13  Ibid.,  pp.  190-194. 

“John  B.  Lamar  to  Howell  Cobb,  June  24,  1846,  Toombs,  Stephens, 
and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  82. 


132 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


would  happen  to  the  Whig  party,  and  perhaps  to  the 
Union,  if  further  territory  were  acquired.  Stephens 
and  Berrien  led  the  opposition  to  the  war.  The  Demo¬ 
crats,  of  course,  made  the  most  of  this  opportunity  to 
call  the  Whigs  disloyal,  thus  returning  the  compliment 
paid  them  in  the  election  of  1844.  Whig  attacks  upon 
the  war  and  the  administration  were  termed  “virulent 
and  loathsome.”15 

Meantime  an  interesting  incident  occurred  at 
Washington  which  might  have  warned  the  Whigs  that 
their  worst  fears  were  to  be  realized.  On  August  6 
David  Wilmot,  of  Pennsylvania,  introduced,  as  an 
amendment  to  a  war  appropriation  bill,  his  famous 
Proviso  forbidding  the  extension  of  slavery  into  any 
lands  secured  from  Mexico.16  In  so  doing  he  is  sup¬ 
posed  to  have  expressed  the  chagrin  of  some  northern 
Democrats  over  the  refusal  of  southern  Democrats  to 
support  them  in  securing  all  of  the  Oregon  country 
from  England,17  but  this  Proviso  was  enthusiastically 
backed  by  the  northern  antislavery  Whigs.  On  the 
other  hand,  all  the  southern  Whigs,  including  the  Geor¬ 
gians,  voted  against  the  proviso  in  August,  1846. 
From  this  time  on  there  was  never  any  serious  division 
of  opinion  within  Georgia  regarding  the  Wilmot  Pro¬ 
viso.  It  was  a  measure  which  practically  all  Georgians 
must  oppose.  The  explanation  of  this  attitude  is 
simple  enough.  The  Proviso  represented  an  open 
attack  upon  what  seemed  to  southerners  their  com- 

15  Ibid. 

l"  Congressional  Globe,  29  Congress,  1  Session,  p.  1217. 

17  This  phase  of  the  matter  was  realized  by  the  Georgia  Democrats, 
see  J.  H.  Lumpkin  to  Howell  Cobb,  Nov.  13,  1846;  Toombs.  Stephens, 
and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  86.  Cf.  C.  E.  Persinger,  “The  ‘Bargain 
of  1844,’  as  The  Origin  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,”  American  Historical 
Association,  Annual  Report,  1911,  I.  189-195.  This  does  not  mean  that 
Wilmot  was  personally  motivated  by  such  chagrin.  See  C.  B.  Going, 
David  Wilmot:  Free  Soiler,  pp.  117-141. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


133 


mon  rights  in  the  territories.  It  was,  therefore, 
not  only  an  insult  to  southern  pride,  but  an  earnest  of 
further  and  final  attacks  upon  slavery,  which  would 
surely  follow  were  this  one  successful.  Whig  slave¬ 
holders  were  certain  to  oppose  an  ultimate  threat  to 
their  institutions  as  energetically  as  would  the  small- 
farmer  Democrats.18  If  there  was  a  small  class  in  the 
hill  country  which  viewed  all  this  as  “a  lordly  slave¬ 
holder’s  battle”  in  which  it  had  no  interest,  this  class 
was  not  articulate  nor  able  to  influence  greatly  the  gen¬ 
eral  opposition  to  the  hated  measure.  This  did  not 
mean,  however,  that  the  Whig  slaveholders  would 
court  the  issue.  Both  their  economic  and  political 
interests  demanded  that  it  be  evaded. 

The  introduction  of  the  Proviso  attracted  little 
immediate  attention  in  either  South  Carolina19  or 
Georgia.  The  adjournment  of  the  Senate  prevented 
final  action  upon  the  measure,  and  the  congressmen 
who  returned  home  in  the  fall  apparently  did  not  bring 
it  to  the  notice  of  their  constituents.  Indeed,  there 
was  in  Georgia  in  the  fall  of  1846  a  curious  lull  before 
the  coming  storm.  John  H.  Lumpkin’s  letter  analyz¬ 
ing  the  political  situation  at  the  time  did  not  mention 
the  Proviso.20  The  same  was  true  of  Howell  Cobb’s 
other  political  correspondents,  who  apparently  had 
never  heard  of  the  measure ;  and  even  the  Democratic 
press  was  silent.  The  Democratic  tariff  of  that  year, 
the  Mexican  War,  the  local  elections — these  monopo- 

18  Washington  National  Intelligencer,  October  21,  1847.  See  Cole, 
Whig  Party,  p.  123.  The  fact  that  Waddy  Thompson,  late  minister 
to  Mexico,  had  already  announced  in  October,  ’47,  the  worthlessness  of 
the  new  territories  for  slave  interests,  did  not  alter  these  essential  con¬ 
siderations  to  any  great  extent. 

19  Phillip  Hamer,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  pp.  1,  2. 

20  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  86,  87.  Lumpkin 
was  Cobb’s  chief  political  lieutenant  in  Upper  Georgia. 


134 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


lized  attention.21  Abolitionists  were  occasionally  be¬ 
rated,  but  some  felt  that  there  was  little  cause  for  alarm 
even  in  this  quarter.  “Abolitionist  Efforts  at  Boston 
are  Below  Par,”  ironically  announced  a  Democratic 
journal.22  So  far  as  the  introduction  of  the  Proviso 
was  known,  it  was  evidently  considered  a  temporary 
flare-up  of  no  serious  consequence. 

The  situation  changed  as  soon  as  Congress  con¬ 
vened  early  in  the  winter.  Polk  recommended  a  war 
appropriation  bill,  and,  on  January  3,  1847,  King,  of 
New  York,  introduced  such  a  bill,  including  a  prohi¬ 
bition  of  slavery  in  all  territorial  acquisitions  which 
might  be  secured.23  This  met  with  almost  immediate 
public  approval  in  the  North,  resolutions  favoring  it 
passing  in  the  Pennsylvania  legislature,  January  22, 
and  in  that  of  Ohio,  February  8,  1847.24  During  the 
course  of  the  winter,  most  of  the  other  northern  states 
took  similar  action. 

This  display  of  northern  feeling  alarmed  the  south¬ 
ern  delegations  in  Congress  and  the  press  of  the  south¬ 
ern  states.  Members  of  the  two  parties,  however, 
reacted  differently.  The  Whig  congressmen  were 
greatly  alarmed,  realizing  at  once  that  the  dangers 
which  threatened  their  party  and  the  Union  were  now 
imminent.  Two  days  after  King  introduced  his  meas¬ 
ure  Alexander  H.  Stephens  declared  in  a  letter : 

A  storm  is  brewing  over  the  slavery  question.  The  North 
is  going  to  stick  the  Wilmot  Amendment  to  every  appropriation 
and  then  all  the  South  will  vote  against  such  a  measure.  Finally 

M  For  typical  topics  of  the  day  see  the  Savannah  Georgian,  August 
20,  1846. 

“  Ibid.,  November  26,  1846. 

K  Congressional  Globe,  29  Congress,  2  Session,  p.  424. 

**  H.  V.  Ames,  State  Documents,  pp.  243,  244. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


135 


a  tremendous  struggle  will  take  place  and  perhaps  Polk,  in 
starting  one  war,  will  find  a  dozen  on  his  hands.  I  fear  the 
worst.25 

Toombs,  his  colleague,  openly  warned  the  House  a  few 
days  later  that  it  was  raising  an  issue  which  might 
destroy  the  Union.  Thus  early  in  the  debate,  he  told 
northern  members  that  the  South  would  “stay  in  the 
Union  on  a  ground  of  perfect  equality,  or  not  stay 
at  all!”26 

Having  issued  their  warning,  the  next  step  for  the 
Georgia  Whigs  was  to  find  some  method  of  avoiding 
the  issue.  Stephens,  like  Toombs,  spoke  of  the  dan¬ 
ger  of  southern  resistance  to  the  Proviso  and  “invoked 
gentlemen  not  to  put  this  principle  to  the  test.”27 
Stephen’s  plan  for  escaping  the  danger  was  soon 
revealed.  On  January  22,  he  introduced  resolutions 
declaring  that  the  United  States  had  no  intention  of 
acquiring  territory  as  a  result  of  the  war.28  While 
some  of  his  fellow  Whigs  discouraged  this  move,  lest 
it  seem  unpatriotic,29  most  northern  and  southern 
Whigs  could  agree  upon  the  policy  and  gave  it  their 
votes  in  the  House.  It  served  to  unify  for  the  time 
the  two  wings  of  the  party. 

Berrien  followed  a  similar  course  in  the  Senate. 
On  February  2,  he  introduced  resolutions  of  the  same 
character  as  those  of  Stephens30  and,  speaking  a  few 
days  later,  appealed  to  the  Senate  to  “exclude  from 
the  national  councils  this  direful  question.”31  The 

25  Quoted  in  Johnston  and  Browne,  Alexander  Stephens,  p.  218. 

26  Congressional  Globe,  29  Congress,  2  session,  p.  140. 

21  Ibid.,  p.  401. 

28  Ibid.,  p.  310. 

20  Johnston  and  Browne,  op.  cit.,  pp.  210,  211. 

30  Congressional  Globe,  29  Congress,  2  session,  p.  222. 

31  Ibid.,  p.  330. 


136 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Georgia  Whigs  were  clearly  leading  their  section  of 
the  party  in  the  policy  of  evasion.32 

The  Georgia  Democrats,  meanwhile,  were  ready 
to  face  the  issue  for  the  same  reason  that  they  had 
courted  it  during  the  fall  campaign  of  1844.  They 
feared  less  a  break  with  their  northern  wing  than  did 
their  opponents  and  saw  an  opportunity  to  uphold 
“southern  rights”  at  the  expense  of  the  Whig  evas- 
ionists.  Cobb,  in  the  House,  contented  himself  with 
a  condemnation  of  the  Proviso,  a  demand  that  southern 
territory  be  acquired,  and  an  offer  to  extend  the  Mis¬ 
souri  Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  in  order  to  com¬ 
promise  on  the  territory  secured.33  Colquitt,  as  a 
Calhoun  Democrat,  went  further,  in  that  he  con¬ 
demned  both  northern  members  and  his  Whig  col¬ 
leagues.  The  Whig  resolutions  were  “but  a  little 
display  of  party  tactics”  to  hold  their  party  together. 
He  “deeply  regreted”  the  position  of  his  colleagues 
“in  opposing  the  acquisition  of  territory  for  fear  of 
agitating  the  question  of  slavery.”  He  protested,  “as 
a  Georgian,”  that  the  people  of  the  South  had  no  such 
fear  of  protecting  their  rights,  which  they  would  con¬ 
tinue  to  do  at  all  hazards.34 

32  The  opposition  of  the  Whigs  in  general,  and  of  Berrien  in  particular, 
to  the  Mexican  War  has  been  severely  criticised  by  Justin  Smith,  The 
War  With  Mexico,  II.  268-293.  Berrien  is  condemned  as  inconsistent, 
and  as  one  who  was  willing  to  sacrifice  not  only  California,  but  even 
national  self-respect,  in  order  to  preserve  Whig  solidarity.  He  was 
ready,  declared  Smith  (II.  288)  to  place  the  American  nation  in  the 
light  of  one  “combining  the  villain,  the  ruffian,  the  simpleton  and  the 
comedian.”  A  more  severe  indictment  of  the  Georgia  senator  could 
hardly  have  been  penned  by  a  contemporary  opponent.  Yet  Berrien  may 
have  sincerely  believed  that  it  was  patriotic,  in  the  long  run,  to  prevent 
territorial  expansion  and  the  sectional  struggle  bound  to  follow  this.  He 
may  also  have  been  sincere  in  the  belief  that  the  War  was  an  unjust  one, 
in  which  case  his  condemnation  of  the  American  government  would  have 
been  at  least  a  partially  justifiable  one. 

33  Congressional  Globe,  29  Congress,  2  session,  p.  362. 

3<  Ibid.,  p.  439. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


137 


On  February  19,  John  C.  Calhoun  introduced  in 
the  Senate  his  famous  “Southern  Platform”  resolu¬ 
tions,  declaring  federal  prohibition  of  slavery  in  a  ter¬ 
ritory  or  incoming  state  unconstitutional.35  Calhoun, 
after  holding  back  the  more  radical  politicians  of  his 
own  state  in  1844  and  1845,  had  now  become  convinced 
by  the  Proviso  agitation  that  there  was  no  longer  any 
question  of  its  ultimate  threat  to  slavery.  He  became 
at  once  an  aggressive  leader,  who  desired  to  force  a 
final  decision  upon  the  Proviso  and  wished  to  see 
the  South  united  upon  that  issue.  The  “Southern 
Platform”  was  intended  as  a  statement  of  principles 
upon  which  the  whole  South  could  unite.36 

The  appropriation  bill,  with  the  Proviso  attached, 
passed  the  House,  but  was  defeated  some  days  after¬ 
wards  in  the  Senate,  which  sent  the  bill  back  to  the 
House.  That  body  then  receded  from  its  position 
and  accepted  the  unamended  bill,  abandoning  the  Pro¬ 
viso.  Congress  then  adjourned,  postponing  the  whole 
issue  and  leaving  it  to  the  states.  Would  the  southern 
states  rally  to  the  “Platform”  as  the  northern  had  to 
the  Proviso? 

The  response  showed  the  extent  to  which  feeling 
had  already  been  aroused  by  the  congressional  debates. 
On  March  8,  1847,  the  Virginia  legislature  passed  a 
series  of  resolutions  supporting  Calhoun’s  position  and 
threatening  resistance  to  the  Proviso  to  the  last  ex¬ 
tremity.37  The  Governor  of  Mississippi,  in  his  reply 
to  the  Virginia  resolutions,  declared  that  the  South 
would  resist  even  to  secession  and  civil  war.  In  Ala¬ 
bama,  appeals  were  made  to  the  voters  to  unite  against 

33  Cralle,  (Ed.),  Works  of  J.  C.  Calhoun,  IV.  339-349. 

38  H.  V.  Ames,  “John  C.  Calhoun  in  the  Secession  Movement  of 
1850,”  University  of  Pennsylvania  Public  Lectures,  1917-1918,  pp.  106,  107. 

37  Ames,  State  Documents,  pp.  244-247. 


138 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  hated  measure.38  Calhoun,  on  his  return  to  South 
Carolina,  was  the  subject  of  ovations  and  public  reso¬ 
lutions  upholding  his  “Platform.”39  In  December  of 
the  following  fall,  the  Alabama  legislature  formally 
approved  the  Virginia  resolutions,  and  in  February, 
1848,  Texas  did  the  same. 

In  Georgia  the  opening  of  Congress  had  found  the 
party  journals  quarreling  over  their  respective  atti¬ 
tudes  towards  the  Mexican  War.  The  Whigs  con¬ 
demned  the  evils  of  Polk’s  administration  and  opposed 
openly,  or  by  implication,  its  war  policy.  The  Demo¬ 
crats  proclaimed  the  Whigs’  disloyalty  and  promised 
them  the  fate  of  the  Federalists  of  181 5. 40  The  news 
of  the  renewed  Proviso  debate  was  received  with  re¬ 
gret,  even  by  the  Democratic  press,  on  the  ground  that 
internal  dissensions  were  unfortunate  in  war  time.41 
As  the  debate  in  Washington  proceeded,  the  party 
papers  tended  to  reflect  the  attitude  taken  there  by  the 
state’s  representatives.  Whig  papers  blamed  the  crisis 
upon  the  Democratic  war  policy  and  supported  the 
efforts  of  Stephens  and  Berrien  to  prevent  the  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  Mexican  territory.42  The  Democratic  journals 
supported  Colquitt  and  condemned  the  Whig  tactics 
against  territorial  expansion  as  shameful  and  “un¬ 
worthy  of  Georgians.”43  All  the  papers  opposed  the 
Proviso,  and  early  in  the  spring  it  was  declared  that 
the  votes  cast  in  the  national  House  upon  that  measure 

38  Niles’  Register,  LXXII.  178,  179. 

38  Hamer,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  p.  4. 

40  Milledgeville  Southern  Recorder,  in  the  Milledgeville  Federal 
Union,  January  26,  1847. 

41  Federal  Union,  January  26,  1847. 

42  Augusta  Chronicle,  February  19;  Savannah  Republican,  March  2, 
1847. 

43  Federal  Union,  February  16 ;  Savannah  Georgian,  February  19, 
1847. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


139 


“should  arouse  every  southern  man  to  a  sense  of  the 
danger.”44  It  was  the  opinion  of  even  the  Democratic 
papers,  however,  that  the  issue  was  one  which  could 
be  compromised,  and  the  extension  of  the  Missouri 
Compromise  line  to  the  Pacific  was  suggested  as  the 
proper  means  to  this  end. 

There  was  no  body  in  session  in  Georgia  during 
the  spring  which  could  take  official  notice  of  the  Cal¬ 
houn  “Platform”  or  the  Virginia  Resolutions.  Late  in 
June  was  the  time  for  the  two  parties  to  hold  their 
customary  annual  state  conventions.  Before  these 
met,  however,  there  were  interesting  developments 
across  the  Savannah  river.  When  Calhoun  returned 
to  Charleston  he  made  a  public  address,  March  9,  1847, 
in  which  he  emphasized  his  conviction  that  the  Proviso 
issue  must  be  met  promptly  by  unified  southern  oppo¬ 
sition.  A  final  decision  in  the  sectional  struggle  must 
be  obtained,  and  any  postponement  of  this  decision 
would  be  most  dangerous  for  the  South.45  During  the 
months  that  followed,  there  matured  in  his  mind  the 
plan  for  a  southern  convention  as  the  best  means  for 
securing  the  sectional  unity  he  deemed  essential.46  The 
next  step  was  to  urge  this  plan  upon  his  friends  in 
Georgia  and  the  Gulf  States  in  the  hope  that  they 
could  organize  therein  a  public  sentiment  favorable  to 
it.  His  letters  to  be  noted  below  indicated  a  belief  that 
the  time  was  already  ripe  for  a  “Southern  Movement” 
in  Georgia,  an  illusion  that  displayed  considerable  ig¬ 
norance  of  the  real  conditions  in  that  state.  Yet  his 
opinions  were  to  exercise  some  influence,  a  fact  already 

44  Federal  Union,  March  2,  1847. 

45  Hamer,  op.  cit.,  pp.  3,  4. 

48  This  plan  for  a  “Southern  Convention,”  of  course,  had  been  sug¬ 
gested  at  various  times  before,  e.g.,  during  the  Bluffton  movement;  see 
Savannah  Republican,  July  8,  1844. 


140 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


apparent  when  the  Georgia  party  conventions  met 
early  in  the  summer. 

The  Democratic  convention  assembled  at  Milledge- 
ville47  on  June  28  to  consider  the  nomination  of  a  can¬ 
didate  for  the  governorship,  to  discuss  the  possible 
nominees  for  the  presidential  election  in  1848,  and  to 
consider  the  Proviso.  G.  W.  Towns,  then  member  of 
the  House  of  Representatives,  secured  the  nomination 
for  the  governorship  in  opposition  to  H.  V.  Johnson. 
There  was  some  debate  upon  presidential  nominees, 
and  resolutions  urging  the  war  hero,  Zachary  Taylor, 
were  introduced.  The  Whigs  were  known  to  be  con¬ 
sidering  Taylor,  and  it  was  suggested  that  the  Demo¬ 
crats  should  forestall  them.  A  group  led  by  Cobb 
opposed  him  vigorously,  since  he  was  hardly  a  Demo¬ 
crat,  and  his  views  were  unknown.  It  was  finally 
decided  to  leave  the  matter  to  the  party’s  national  con¬ 
vention  in  the  ensuing  year.48 

As  soon  as  the  Proviso  and  the  sectional  contro¬ 
versy  were  brought  into  the  debate,  ominous  differ¬ 
ences  of  opinion  appeared.  Cobb  and  the  more  militant 
Union  Democrats  displayed  a  desire  to  avoid  taking 
any  stand  that  might  embarrass  relationships  with  the 
northern  Democrats.  He  introduced  resolutions  de¬ 
claring  “confidence  in  our  brethren  of  the  Northern 
democracy.”  As  some  of  these  “brethren”  had  voted 
for  the  Proviso,  this  met  with  a  spirited  protest  from 
the  state-rights  Democrats.  This  element,  whose  his¬ 
tory  has  been  discussed  in  a  previous  chapter,  had  re¬ 
turned  to  the  Democratic  party  with  Calhoun  in  1840 
and  had  always  maintained  a  strong  state-rights  and 
pro-southern  attitude.  Hence  it  was  inclined  at  once  to 

41  Then  capital  of  the  state. 

48  For  Democratic  opinions  of  Taylor’s  availability,  see  the  Federal 
Union,  April  27,  1847. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


141 


sympathize  with  Calhoun’s  position  in  1847.  Cobb’s 
resolutions  were  withdrawn  for  the  sake  of  preserving 
party  harmony,  but  they  forecast  the  division  of  the 
party  which  was  certain  to  come  if  the  sectional  con¬ 
troversy  continued. 

Edward  J.  Black,  a  state-rights  Democrat,  then 
spoke  in  favor  of  the  Virginia  Resolutions,  advocated 
Calhoun’s  move  for  southern  party  unity,  and  praised 
that  leader  as  the  one  destined  to  save  his  section. 
This  brought  immediate  opposition  from  the  majority, 
already  suspicious  of  Calhoun’s  intentions.  Gardner, 
editor  of  the  Augusta  Constitutionalist ,  recalled  old 
antagonisms  when  he  warned  the  Calhounites  that  “a 
defense  of  Calhoun  is  not  the  high-road  to  success  in 
the  Democracy  of  Georgia.”49 

The  sentiment  against  the  Proviso,  however,  was 
strong,  and  all  could  agree  on  resolutions  generally 
similar  to  those  of  Virginia.  No  Proviso  legislation,, 
it  was  declared,  “could  be  recognized  as  binding” — a 
statement  that  suggested  the  old  idea  of  nullification. 
The  party  pledged  itself  to  vote  for  no  presidential 
candidate  in  1848  who  did  not  “unequivocally  declare 
his  opposition  to  the  Principles  and  Provisions  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso.”  It  was  said  that  slavery  had  a  right 
to  enter  all  the  territories,  but  the  party  was  ready  to 
accept  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  as  a  compro¬ 
mise  of  fact  rather  than  of  principle.50  Other  resolu- 

19  Edward  J.  Black  to  J.  C.  Calhoun,  Jacksonboro,  Ga.,  n.d. ;  (evi¬ 
dently  written  in  the  fall  of  ’47),  Calhoun  Papers.  (A  collection  of 
unpublished  letters,  supplementing  the  Calhoun  Correspondence,  which 
has  been  edited  for  publication  by  the  American  Historical  Association. 
The  present  writer  is  indebted  to  Professor  C.  S.  Boucher,  one  of  the 
editors,  for  the  use  of  the  letters  herein  cited.) 

60  Boucher,  “In  Re  That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  op.  cit.,  pp.  44,  45, 
observes  that  the  acceptance  of  the  Missouri  Compromise  line  some¬ 
times  embarrassed  southerners  as  “a  complete  admission”  of  the  power 
of  Congress  over  slavery  in  the  territories.  This  admission  was  usually 
specifically  denied  in  Georgia,  as  in  the  resolutions  noted  above. 


142 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


tions  adopted  related  to  the  support  of  Polk  and  the 
War  and  to  the  usual  attacks  upon  a  United  States 
Bank  and  a  protective  tariff.51  The  convention  ad¬ 
journed  without  airing  in  public  the  first  divergences 
over  the  sectional  problem. 

Meanwhile,  the  Whig  convention  met  at  Milledge- 
ville  on  July  1.  The  Calhounites  intended  to  appeal  to 
Whigs  as  well  as  to  Democrats  to  drop  their  old  party 
affiliations  for  the  sake  of  sectional  unity.  It  should 
be  remembered  that  Calhoun  had  some  grounds  for 
expecting  Whig  support,  in  that  the  Whigs  had  been 
allied  with  him  in  their  opposition  to  Polk  and  the 
War.  Toombs  had  given  him  direct  encouragement 
in  this  expectation.  As  late  as  April  30,  he  had  written 
to  Calhoun :  “Our  policy  towards  the  whole  Mexican 
question  it  is  now  evident  will  be  in  your  hands.  .  .  . 
The  people  of  the  South  are  now  anxiously  waiting  to 
see  which  direction  you  will  give  it.”52  The  Caro¬ 
linian  had  also  been  encouraged  by  the  fact  that  reso¬ 
lutions  supporting  his  “Platform”  had  been  adopted 
in  one  or  two  local  Whig  conventions  in  Georgia  which 
preceded  the  state  convention.53  In  his  reply  to  one 
of  these,  he  took  the  opportunity  to  make  a  public 
appeal  to  the  Whigs  of  the  state,  which  received  wide 
attention  in  both  the  North  and  the  South  at  the  time. 

“I  am  happy,”  he  declared,  “that  my  resolutions 
have  met  with  the  approval  of  your  meeting.  ...  I 
hail  it  as  an  omen  that  the  Whigs  of  Georgia  are  pre¬ 
pared  to  do  their  duty  in  reference  to  the  vital  ques¬ 
tion  involved.  ...  I  hope  it  is  the  precursor  to  the 

51  Niles’  Register,  LXII.  293  (July  10,  1847);  Savannah  Georgian, 
July  1,  1847;  Holsey  to  Cobb,  Dec.  31.  1847,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  93. 

52  Toombs  to  Calhoun,  April  30,  1847,  Calhoun  Papers. 

53  Samuel  A.  Wales  to  Calhoun,  Eatonton,  Georgia,  June  17,  1847, 
Calhoun  Papers. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


143 


union  of  all  parties  with  us  to  repel  an  unprovoked 
assault  upon  us — one  that  involves  our  safety  and  that 
of  the  Union.  We  have  the  constitution  clearly  with 
us.  .  .  .  We  must  not  be  deceived.  The  time  has 
come  when  the  question  must  be  met.  It  can  no  longer 
be  avoided,  nor,  if  it  could ,  is  it  desirable.  The  longer 
it  is  postponed  the  more  dangerous  will  become  the 
feelings  between  the  sections.  With  union  among  our¬ 
selves  there  is  nothing  to  fear,  but  without  it  every¬ 
thing.  The  question  is  far  above  the  party  questions 
of  the  day.  He  who  is  not  with  us  is  against  us.”54 

Three  days  after  this  appeal  was  written,  the  Whig 
party  convention  met  at  Milledgeville.  It  was  at  once 
apparent  that  the  Whigs  who  would  support  Calhoun 
were  in  such  a  minority  as  to  be  submerged  in  the 
great  body  of  typically  conservative  members.  Any  of 
the  latter  who  had,  with  Toombs,  been  “waiting  anxi¬ 
ously  to  see  what  direction”  Calhoun  would  give  to 
“the  whole  Mexican  question,”  evidently  did  not  desire 
to  follow  the  direction  he  had  chosen.  This  led  too 
obviously  to  a  split  with  northern  party  allies  and  to 
the  precipitation  of  a  crisis  in  sectional  relations.  The 
conservatives  were  in  such  complete  control  of  the 
gathering  that  the  only  evidence  given  of  sympathy 
with  Calhoun  was  the  passage  of  a  resolution  thanking 
him  for  his  opposition  to  the  Mexican  War. 

The  Wilmot  Proviso  was  condemned  as  “unjust 
and  unconstitutional,”  but  no  threats  of  resistance 
were  made.  The  convention  then  proceeded  to  the 
nomination  of  candidates  for  governor  and  for  the 
presidency.  Duncan  L.  Clinch,  a  coastal  planter,  de- 

54 Niles’  Register,  LXII.  323,  389  (Aug.  21,  1847).  It  was  reprinted 
in  both  northern  and  southern  journals  with  appropriate  comments. 
The  Boston  Atlas,  e.g.,  threatened  that  a  solid  South  would  be  met  by 
.a  solid  North. 


144 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


feated  William  C.  Dawson  for  the  first  honor.  Reso¬ 
lutions  followed  favoring  Zachary  Taylor  as  the  next 
presidential  nominee.  There  was  less  opposition  to 
this  proposal  than  there  had  been  in  the  Democratic 
conventions,  presumably  because  the  Whigs  stood  in 
greater  need  of  filching  some  glory  from  a  war  which 
they  had  opposed.  Governor  Crawford’s  admin¬ 
istration  was  highly  praised,  especially  for  its  financial 
record.  So  far  as  all  other  issues,  local  or  national, 
were  concerned,  the  resolutions  merely  observed  with 
modest  brevity  that  “Whig  principles  are  too  well 
known  to  need  repetition.”55 

The  declarations  of  the  party  conventions  made  it 
plain  that  the  Proviso  issue  would  be  injected  into  the 
state  campaign.  The  Democrats  took  the  initiative, 
since  their  position  still  enabled  them  to  emphasize  the 
sectional  appeal.  Towns  largely  devoted  his  letter 
accepting  the  Democratic  nomination  to  an  attack  upon 
the  Proviso,  which  he  termed  “a  strange  amalgama¬ 
tion  of  religious  fanaticism  and  political  knavery.”  The 
South  must  resist  it,  with  nothing  to  concede  or  to 
compromise.56  In  his  speeches  which  followed  and  in 
the  Democratic  press,  it  was  emphasized  that  the  party 
had  in  its  platform  not  only  condemned  the  Proviso,  but 
had  promised  final  resistance  thereto.  It  had  pledged 
itself  to  back  no  presidential  nominee  who  was  not 
clearly  opposed  to  the  measure  and  had  nominated  for 
governor  one  whose  principles  were  also  clearly  known. 
The  Democrats  were  not  backward  in  proclaiming' 
themselves,  therefore,  the  party  of  “southern  rights.” 

65  Savannah  Republican,  July  2,  1847 ;  Georgian.  July  2,  1847 ;  Niles’ 
Register,  LXII.  389  (August  21,  1847).  Crawford,  one  of  the  state’s 
Whig  leaders,  had  been  governor  since  1843,  i.e.,  during  the  period  of 
financial  recovery  described  in  chapter  I. 

M  Federal  Union,  July  27,  1847. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


145 


On  the  other  hand,  the  failure  of  the  Whigs  to  dupli¬ 
cate  the  Democratic  resolutions  was  fiercely  attacked. 
They  could  not  be  trusted  to  defend  the  rights  of  their 
own  section.57 

The  fact  that  Clinch  issued  no  statement  of  prin¬ 
ciples  weakened  his  position  upon  the  chief  issue.  The 
Whigs  had  condemned  the  Proviso,  and  there  was  no 
doubt  that  in  this  they  expressed  the  views  of  their 
constitutents.  Yet  they  were  necessarily  more  anxious 
to  evade  the  issue  than  were  their  opponents.  When 
urged  to  support  only  a  clearly  anti-Proviso  presi¬ 
dential  nominee,  they  replied  by  pointing  to  “Old 
Zach,”  their  choice,  as  one  of  whom  no  questions  need 
be  asked.  Indeed,  the  Whigs  preferred  to  avoid  na¬ 
tional  issues  altogether  and  to  emphasize  matters  of 
state  interest,  such  as  the  creditable  financial  record 
of  the  Crawford  administration.  The  Milledgeville 
Southern  Recorder  openly  held  that,  as  this  was  a  state 
election,  matters  of  national  concern  should  not  be 
dragged  in  to  confuse  the  contest.58  The  Augusta 
Chronicle ,  however,  ever  the  boldest  of  the  Whig 
papers,  continued  to  discuss  national  issues,  denounc¬ 
ing  Polk  and  the  War,  and  Towns  as  a  supporter  of 
both.  The  Democrats  were  held  responsible  for  the 
whole  difficult  Proviso  problem,  which  they  had  thrust 
upon  the  country,  despite  Whig  warnings,  because  of 
their  war  policy.59 

Both  parties  apparently  maintained  internal  har¬ 
mony  in  the  face  of  the  common  political  enemy 
through  the  summer  and  fall.  It  has  been  noted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  sectional  issue  was  already  disturbing 

67  Federal  Union,  July  27;  Georgian,  August  11;  Columbus  Times, 
August  17,  1847. 

“In  the  Federal  Union,  August  3,  1847. 

59  Augusta  Chronicle,  August  8,  10,  1847. 


146 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


this  apparent  good  feeling.  Calhoun’s  efforts  to 
organize  a  southern  movement  in  the  state  continued. 
The  response  among  the  Whigs  was  so  slight  as  to 
make  it  almost  negligible.  The  small  Calhoun  element 
in  the  party  had  been  submerged,  though  not  elimi¬ 
nated,  in  the  June  convention.  Appeals  to  the  masses 
of  the  Democrats  were  also  unsuccessful.  Efforts 
were  at  first  made  to  swing  even  the  old  Union  element 
into  the  new  movement.  Isaac  Holmes,  South  Caro¬ 
lina  congressman,  wrote  to  Howell  Cobb  urging  the 
necessity  for  southern  unity  and  for  the  abandonment 
of  the  old  parties.60  The  net  result  of  such  appeals 
to  Union  Democrats,  as  will  be  noted  below,  was  sim¬ 
ply  to  increase  their  latent  antagonism  and  suspicion 
of  the  South  Carolina  movement.  The  response  of 
the  state-rights  element,  which  had  existed  in  the  party 
since  1840,  was  certain  to  be  more  friendly.  To  the 
leaders  of  this  group  Calhoun  supplied  inspiration, 
and  received  in  return  confidential  reports  upon  the 
prospects  facing  his  movement  within  Georgia. 

His  most  regular  and  in  some  ways  most  interest¬ 
ing  correspondent  was  Wilson  Lumpkin,  ex-governor 
and  one-time  Union  Democratic  leader,  who  had  been 
converted  to  the  state-rights  position.  Lumpkin 
agreed  entirely  with  Calhoun  in  his  analysis  of  the 
national  situation  and  on  the  need  for  southern  unity 
against  northern  aggression.  At  times,  he  seemed  to 
be  urging  Calhoun  on  rather  than  merely  receiving 
his  suggestions.  But  in  his  comments  on  the  political 
situation  in  Georgia  he  warned  him  constantly  that  the 
time  was  not  yet  ripe  for  the  formation  of  a  southern 
party.  “With  but  very  few  exceptions,”  he  wrote  in 

w  Holmes  to  Cobb,  August  21,  1847,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  88. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


147 


August,  1847,  “the  people  of  Georgia  are  wholly  un¬ 
prepared  to  yield  up  their  old  party  attachments.  .  .  . 
The  press  tries  to  lull  their  sense  of  danger.”  It 
would  require  further  developments  and  agitation  “to 
produce  a  conviction  of  the  utter  corruption  of  both 
the  great  parties.”01  On  November  18,  in  response  to 
further  urgings  from  the  Carolinian,  Lumpkin  re¬ 
plied  :  “I  concur  with  you  that  concert  of  action  is  the 
first  object  to  be  obtained,  and  I  can  see  no  way  of 
effecting  this  but  by  a  convention  of  the  states  inter¬ 
ested.”  But  this  plan  for  a  southern  convention,  which 
his  friends  desired,  could  not  now  be  proclaimed  in 
Georgia.  It  would  only  stir  up  antagonisms  and  oppo¬ 
sition  within  the  Democratic  party.  Calhoun  was 
warned  that  he  overestimated  the  chances  for  its  suc¬ 
cess  in  the  state.  Perhaps,  however,  some  develop¬ 
ments  in  the  legislature  about  to  convene  or  in  the 
coming  session  of  Congress  would  supply  the  stimulus 
necessary  to  arouse  the  state  to  a  sense  of  its  danger.62 

Similar  warnings  reached  Charleston  from  other 
Democrats  in  Georgia.  One  of  them,  however,  had 
some  practical  suggestions  to  offer.  Edward  J.  Black 
came  from  Scriven  County,  which,  lying  just  across 
the  Savannah,  had  a  large  element  of  South  Carolin¬ 
ians  in  its  population.  He  declared  to  Calhoun  in  the 
fall: 

I  am  writing  you  on  the  proposition  you  make  of  retaliation. 
But  how  is  it  to  be  effected?  I  confess  the  attitude  of  the 
Democratic  party  within  this  state,  as  I  found  them  in  the  con¬ 
vention  of  June  last,  was  anything  but  satisfactory  to  me.  I 

01  Wilson  Lumpkin  to  Calhoun,  August  27,  1847,  Calhoun  Papers ; 
see  ibid,  for  similar  letters  dated  March  11  and  December  20,  1847. 
Wilson  Lumpkin  was  an  uncle  of  John  H.  Lumpkin,  Cobb’s  lieutenant. 

“Wilson  Lumpkin  to  Calhoun,  November  18,  1847,  “The  Corres¬ 
pondence  of  John  C.  Calhoun”  (J.  F.  Jameson,  Ed.),  American  Histori¬ 
cal  Association,  Annual  Report,  1899,  II.  1138. 


148 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


found  the  great  mass  of  the  party  inclining  strongly  to  their  old 
ways  of  temporizing  with  principles  and  postponing  necessary 
and  ultimately  inevitable  issues.  .  .  .  We  have  succeeded 

in  electing  Mr.  Lawton,63  native  of  South  Carolina  and  a 
Democrat,  from  this  senatorial  district.  He  professes  to  be 
your  friend.  [Lawton  was  ready  to  introduce  resolutions  in 
the  state  senate  favoring  “retaliation.”  Such  prospective  reso¬ 
lutions  would  stand  a  better  chance  there  than  ones  demanding 
immediate  or  preemptory  action.]  If  you  think  so  and  can 
find  time  to  draft  a  set  of  resolutions  for  me,  with  a  succinct 
preamble  setting  forth  the  states  that  have  assailed  us,  and  the 
nature,  manner  and  time  of  the  assault,  I  will  keep  the  original 
strictly  to  myself  and  send  a  copy  by  Lawton  to  our  friends 
at  Milledgeville.  ...  If  you  can  send  me  anything  let  me 
have  it  shortly.  ...  I  would  draw  them  up  myself,  but 
know  I  cannot  do  as  you  can.64 

It  is  possible  that  Calhoun  did  send  something  to 
Black  and  Lawton,  as  the  latter  was  one  of  the  first  to 
introduce  resolutions  upon  the  slavery  question  when 
the  legislature  convened  late  in  November.  Two  years 
later,  when  the  legislature  of  1849  met,  he  was  again 
one  of  the  leaders  in  introducing  a  series  which  were 
later  passed  by  that  body  and  became  nationally  known 
as  the  “Georgia  Resolutions.” 

The  letters  from  Black  and  Wilson  Lumpkin 
show  clearly  why  the  Calhoun  Democrats  in  Georgia 
failed  to  come  out  in  the  open  during  the  fall  of  1847. 
Such  appeals  for  southern  unity  as  were  made  were 
unofficial  and  were  made  upon  individual  responsibility. 
The  most  interesting  of  these  was  contained  in  a  re¬ 
markable  pamphlet  entitled  Letters  from  Georgia  to 
Massachusetts  and  to  the  Southern  States.  The 
anonymous  author,  in  reality  A.  B.  Longstreet,  osten¬ 
sibly  desired  to  show  the  Old  Bay  State  the  error  of 

63  W.  J.  Lawton,  of  Scriven. 

M  Edward  J.  Black  to  Calhoun,  Jacksonboro,  Georgia,  n.d.  (c.  Nov. 
1847),  Calhoun  Papers. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


149 


its  ways,  but  was  actually  appealing  to  the  southern 
people.  He  began  by  giving  a  vivid  resume  of  the 
comparative  history  of  the  two  states  with  regard  to 
slavery,  as  seen  from  the  Georgia  point  of  view.  His 
indictment  of  Massachusetts  was  scathing  and  im¬ 
pressive.  He  then  proceeded  to  explain  why  Georgia 
could  not  emancipate  and  predicted  with  remarkable 
accuracy  the  course  of  the  civil  war  which  would 
ensue  if  the  abolitionist  attack  upon  slavery  was  con¬ 
tinued.65  Having  thus  appealed  to  Massachusetts  at 
length  in  his  first  letters,  he  confessed  to  his  southern 
audience  in  the  later  ones  that  he  had  achieved  nothing 
but  “trouble  for  his  pains.”  Let  this  be  a  warning  to 
the  South !  The  section  was  about  to  be  overwhelmed 
by  northern  aggression,  yet  remained  apathetic  in  the 
face  of  the  attack.  People  agreed  that  the  Proviso 
was  an  evil  thing,  but  turned  from  its  consideration  to 
the  more  interesting  question,  “What’s  the  price  of 
cotton?”  For  the  sake  of  party  harmony  and  office, 
southern  Democrats  would  suffer  all  things  from 
northern  Democrats,  and  southern  Whigs  from  north¬ 
ern  Whigs.  These  dangerous  and  degrading  party 
alliances  must  be  abandoned  if  the  South  was  to  be 
saved — if  the  Union  was  to  be  saved  !66 

Such  an  appeal,  while  anonymous  and  unofficial, 
gave  a  detailed  exposition  of  the  views  of  the  Calhoun 
Democrats.  It  plainly  hinted  at  the  possibility  of 
secession  and  therefore  was  apt  to  arouse  the  very 
suspicions  and  opposition  among  the  Union  Demo¬ 
crats  that  Calhoun’s  correspondents  had  warned  him 
must  be  avoided. 

05  Voice  from  the  South:  Comprising  Letters  from  Georgia  to  Massa- 
chusettes  and  to  the  Southern  States,  (Baltimore,  1847),  pp.  9-53. 

63  Ibid.,  Georgia  to  the  Southern  States,  p.  3  . 


150 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Calhoun’s  course  on  the  War,  which  had  attracted 
the  sympathy  of  Georgia  Whigs,  had  correspondingly 
repelled  Georgia  Democrats.  This  was  especially  true 
of  the  Union  Democratic  element  in  the  northwestern 
part  of  the  state,  for  here  Calhoun  had  been  opposed 
and  suspected  since  nullification  days.67  The  Demo¬ 
cratic  press  also  condemned  his  attitude.  When,  in 
the  spring  of  1847,  he  took  the  lead  in  southern  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  Proviso,  some  of  the  papers  which  had 
opposed  him  on  the  war  began  to  support  him  on  the 
Proviso.68  However,  as  the  summer  proceeded,  and  it 
became  apparent  that  he  was  planning  radical  resist¬ 
ance  to  the  Proviso  and  was  actually  courting  the  issue 
in  a  counter-offensive  against  the  North,  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  journals  again  opposed  him.  The  Federal 
Union  deprecated  the  idea  of  a  “Southern  Move¬ 
ment,”69  although  it  admitted  that  relationships  were 
becoming  strained  with  the  northern  Democrats.70 
The  Savannah  Georgian,  whose  traditional  attitude 
was  anti-Carolina,  naturally  condemned  Calhoun.71 
Gardner,  of  the  Augusta  Constitutionalist,  proclaimed 
in  July  that  the  support  of  Calhoun  would  not  be  popu¬ 
lar  in  the  Georgia  Democracy.72  Indeed,  Samuel  J. 
Ray,  of  the  Macon  Telegraph,  seemed  to  be  the  only 
Democratic  editor  of  consequence  who  was  ready  to 
support  him  when  the  southern  movement  was  first 
announced  in  1847.73 

The  Union  Democrats  quite  naturally  felt,  there¬ 
fore,  that  they  had  the  bulk  of  the  party  with  them  in 

67  W.  H.  Hull  to  Cobb,  May  22,  1846,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  79. 

68  Federal  Union,  February  23,  1847. 

66  October  26,  1847. 

70  August  17,  1847. 

71  Georgian,  February  5,  May  3,  November  21,  1847. 

72  E.  J.  Black  to  Calhoun,  n.d.  ( c .  November,  1847),  Calhoun  Papers. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


151 


their  opposition  to  the  southern  movement.  Holsey, 
of  the  Athens  Banner,  Cobb’s  organ,  was  scornful  of 
the  Calhounites.  He  wrote  to  Cobb  of  their  “absolute 
monomania.”74  He  showed  a  shrewd  understanding 
of  the  popular  psychology,  morever,  in  explaining  why 
it  would  be  wise  for  the  leaders  of  the  party  to  maintain 
a  strong  Union  position.  No  party,  he  declared,  could 
succeed  in  Georgia  which  threatened  the  Union.  The 
love  of  the  Union  was  too  thoroughly  implanted  in  the 
minds  of  the  masses  of  both  parties.  Should  we  do 
anything  “to  weaken  the  bonds  of  the  Union  our  own 
shaft  would  recoil  upon  us.”75  This  was  accurate 
prophecy  of  what  was  to  follow. 

When  the  election  for  members  of  the  legislature 
was  held  early  in  October,  the  Whigs  secured  a  slight 
majority  in  that  body;  but  in  November  the  Democrats 
succeeded  in  electing  Towns  governor  by  a  majority 
of  thirteen  hundred.76  This  was  their  first  victory  in  a 
gubernatorial  election  since  McDonald’s  last  election  in 
1841.  The  vote  for  Towns  in  1847  was  twenty-five  hun¬ 
dred  greater  than  had  been  that  for  the  Democratic 
candidate,  McAllister,  two  years  before.  The  Democrats 
themselves  were  inclined  to  credit  this  gain  largely  to 
Whig  efforts  to  evade  the  slavery  extension  issue — 
especially  to  their  anti-annexationist  policy  during  the 
last  congressional  session  and  to  their  evasion  of  the 
Proviso  and  “Platform”  problems  during  the  cam¬ 
paign.77  The  small  Whig  majority  in  the  legislature 
(four  members  in  the  House  and  one  in  the  Senate) 

74  Holsey  to  Cobb,  December  31,  1847,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  91. 

75  Ibid. 

,<J  The  vote  was  as  follows:  Towns,  43,220,  Clinch,  41,931.  See  the 
Federal  Union,  November  9,  1847,  for  the  returns. 

77  Savannah  Georgian,  October  8,  1847. 


152 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


was  ascribed  to  a  superfluous  number  of  Democratic 
candidates  in  the  counties  and  senatorial  districts.78 
The  majority  was  so  slight,  however,  that  the  presence 
of  a  few  members  of  uncertain  attitude  practically  bal¬ 
anced  the  parties.79 

The  legislature  convened  as  usual  late  in  November 
and  plunged  immediately  into  the  several  phases  of 
the  slavery  problem  then  before  the  country.  The 
Senate  opened  with  a  four  day  discussion  of  the  Mexi¬ 
can  War  and  the  Proviso.  The  opposition  to  the 
latter  was  impressively  unanimous.  It  happened  that 
resolutions  from  Connecticut  and  New  Hampshire 
supporting  the  Proviso  were  among  the  first  business 
presented,  and  there  was  a  general  feeling  that  the 
reply  from  Georgia  should  make  clear  to  the  North 
just  how  the  state  felt  on  this  critical  matter.  Several 
resolutions  for  this  purpose  passed  without  opposition. 
Those  of  Harden,  a  Democrat,  declared  that  Georgia 
“viewed  with  solemn  apprehension  the  approach  of  a 
crisis  menacing  the  annihilation  of  the  Union.  If  the 
Union  is  broken  we  will  place  the  moral  responsibility 
upon  the  North  where  it  belongs.”80  This  statement 
of  the  defensive  position  of  the  state  was  followed  by 
an  appreciation  of  such  northern  congressmen  as 
seemed  to  be  cooperating  with  those  from  the  South 
in  an  efifort  to  avert  the  crisis,  public  thanks  being  ex¬ 
tended  to  those  who  had  voted  against  the  Proviso.81 

Lest  the  northern  people,  however,  persist  in  the 
attempt  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  territories,  under 
a  false  impression  of  the  attitude  of  the  southern  peo¬ 
ple,  a  solemn  warning  was  issued  upon  this  matter. 

™  Federal  Union,  November  9,  1847. 

78  Macon  Telegraph  in  the  Georgian,  October  12,  1847. 

80  Savannah  Georgian,  December  4,  1847. 

81  Ibid.,  December  14,  1847. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


153 


The  important  standing  committee  on  the  state  of  the 
republic  was  instructed  to  bring  in  “such  a  report  upon 
the  Proviso  as  is  a  just  exhibit  of  the  feelings  of  the 
people  of  Georgia,”  The  committee  prepared  an  inter¬ 
esting  preamble  to  their  resolutions  in  response  to  this 
instruction.  “The  people  of  Georgia,”  it  declared, 
“have  for  a  series  of  years  been  divided  and  disturbed 
by  other  questions,  [than  slavery]  so  much  perhaps 
as  to  induce  the  false  hope  that  upon  this  vital  question 
there  may  now  prevail  discord  and  discension.  This 
is  not  true.  Georgia  has  but  one  mind — is  as  one 
man — all  political  parties  are  ready  to  plant  them¬ 
selves  upon  the  same  platform  and  join  heart  and 
hand  in  the  assertion  and  maintenance  of  their  consti¬ 
tutional  rights  in  the  territories.”82 

This  preamble  was  adopted  by  the  unanimous  vote 
of  both  Whigs  and  Democrats.  There  is  no  doubting 
its  sincerity  or  the  solemn  character  of  its  warning  to 
the  North.  The  statement  that  southern  men  were 
often  divided  in  this  period  is  true,  but  for  Georgia 
it  meant  not  a  division  upon  the  Proviso  itself,  but 
only  a  difference  of  opinion  as  to  whether  this  issue 
should  be  cultivated  or  avoided. 

The  divergence  between  the  parties  on  the  question 
of  evading  the  Proviso  had  already  been  made  clear  in 
the  party  conventions  early  in  the  summer  and  now 
promptly  reappeared  in  the  legislature.  The  develop¬ 
ments  in  the  Senate  illustrate  this  divergence.  The 
Democrats  introduced  resolutions  which  supported  the 
Mexican  War  at  the  same  time  that  they  opposed  the 
Proviso.  Other  resolutions,  however,  offered  the 
Missouri  line  as  a  compromise  of  fact  on  the  question 
of  territorial  expansion.  The  Whigs  defeated  the 

82  Savannah  Republican,  May  23,  1848. 


154 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


latter  with  the  assistance  of  Union  Democrats,  as 
their  aim  was  to  avoid  the  whole  issue  by  denying  any 
accession  of  territory.83  They  were  simply  following 
the  tactics  determined  upon  by  Berrien  and  Stephens 
and  other  southern  Whig  leaders  in  the  last  session  of 
Congress.  They  denounced  the  effort  to  combine  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  Proviso  (an  opposition  which  all  shared) 
with  approval  of  the  war  (an  approval  which  was  not 
shared  by  the  Whigs  at  all).  “The  Whigs  took  high 
ground  against  the  war,”  declared  a  Democratic  mem¬ 
ber,  “and  denounced  it  as  infamous.  They  also  went 
against  any  further  acquisition  of  territory.”84  The 
resolutions  introduced  by  Calhoun’s  friend,  W.  J. 
Lawton,  were  not  even  permitted  to  be  printed,  on  the 
ground  that  they  did  not  represent  majority  opinion.85 

Nevertheless,  the  resolutions  finally  adopted  con¬ 
cerning  the  war  were  so  framed  as  not  to  antagonize 
the  Democrats  too  greatly.  They  did  not  condemn  the 
Mexican  War  in  particular,  but  held  that  war  was 
repugnant  per  se  and  should  always  be  avoided  when 
possible.  The  present  war  should  be  terminated  speed¬ 
ily  and  in  a  liberal  spirit,  without  the  dismemberment 
of  Mexico.  Polk  was  censured  for  casting  aspersions 
upon  those  who  opposed  his  war  policy.  These  reso¬ 
lutions  passed  the  Senate  by  a  vote  of  twenty-three  to 
twenty-one — a  strictly  party  vote.86  They  offer  a  final 
refutation  of  the  charge  that  the  Georgia  slavocracy 
desired  practical  extension  of  slave  territory.87  Simi- 

83  L.  G.  Glenn  to  H.  Cobb,  December  1,  1847.  Toombs,  Stephens  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  89. 

84  Ibid. 

85  Savannah  Georgian,  December  8,  1847. 

88  Federal  Union,  December  7,  1847. 

83  This  mistaken  charge,  made  directly  or  by  implication,  persists 
even  in  scholarly  works.  See,  e.g.,  W.  E.  Dodd,  Expansion  and  Conflict, 
p.  174. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848  155 

lar  resolutions  were  accepted  in  the  House  in  the  same 
manner. 

After  December,  the  legislature  abandoned  the  ter¬ 
ritorial  topic  to  Congress  and  proceeded  with  the  dis¬ 
cussion  of  state  affairs.  The  scene  of  the  sectional 
drama  shifted,  therefore,  to  the  national  capital.  The 
Georgia  delegation,  which  returned  to  Washington  in 
December,  1847,  was  evenly  divided  between  the  par¬ 
ties;  there  being  four  Democrats — Howell  Cobb,  John 
H.  Lumpkin,  Iverson,  and  Haralson ;  and  four  Whigs 
— Stephens,  Toombs,  Jones,  and  Thomas  B.  King.88 
Colquitt  and  Berrien  remained  in  the  Senate.  Colquitt 
resigned  in  January,  however,  and  went  to  Florida, 
whereupon  Governor  Towns  appointed  Herschal  V. 
Johnson  in  his  place.  Colquitt  and  Towns  were  both 
state-rights  Democrats,  and  it  was  natural  that  John¬ 
son,  also  of  that  group,  should  be  given  the  appoint¬ 
ment. 

When  Congress  convened  in  December,  1847,  the 
most  pressing  topic  of  national  interest  was  the  con¬ 
tinuation  of  the  Mexican  War.  The  Whigs  renewed 
their  opposition,  and  Stephens  took  the  lead  in  sup¬ 
porting  resolutions  introduced  in  the  House  declaring 
the  war  to  have  been  begun  “unjustly  and  unconstitu¬ 
tionally”  by  the  President.89  A  slight  Whig  majority 
made  it  possible  to  pass  these  resolutions,  and  to  this 
condemnation  of  the  War  the  Georgia  leader  ascribed 
the  subsequent  efforts  of  the  administration  to  arrange 
peace  with  Mexico.90  Early  in  February,  Trist  nego¬ 
tiated  the  treaty  which  was  later  ratified  and  which 
provided  for  that  very  extension  of  territory  which 

88  Congressional  Globe,  30  Congress,  1  sess.,  pp.  1,  2.  Iverson  re¬ 
placed  Towns,  who  had  resigned  to  become  governor. 

™  Ibid,,  p.  343. 

80  Avary,  Recollections  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  p.  21. 


156 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  Georgia  Whigs  had  so  steadily  opposed.  The 
question  of  the  extension  of  slavery  into  these  new 
territories  had  now  to  be  faced  by  Whigs  and  Demo¬ 
crats  alike.  The  situation  was  complicated  by  the  nec¬ 
essity  for  the  organization  of  a  territorial  government 
in  the  Oregon  country. 

It  must  be  remembered  that  even  the  actual  acquisi¬ 
tion  of  the  new  territories  in  the  Southwest  did  not 
make  the  question  of  slavery  extension  an  entirely 
practical  one.  It  had  been  realized  by  many  southern 
as  well  as  northern  men  ever  since  the  return  of 
Minister  Waddy  Thompson  from  Mexico  that  the  new 
country  was  practically  unfit  for  slavery.91  The  Geor¬ 
gia  political  leaders  were  inclined  to  admit  this  directly, 
or  by  implication,  though  some  southern  politicians 
would  not  do  so.92  Toombs  and  most  of  the  Whigs 
were  inclined  to  oppose  the  Proviso  on  the  grounds 
mentioned  above ;  that  is,  that  it  was  not  only  an  insult 
to  southern  pride,  but  an  earnest  of  what  was  to 
follow.  If  it  was  a  “mere  abstraction,”  why  were 
northern  men  so  anxious  to  adopt  it? 

A  portion  of  the  Democrats  in  Georgia,  as  else¬ 
where  in  the  South,  had  desired  the  annexation  of 
much  larger  areas  in  Mexico,  into  which  slavery  might 
be  extended  in  actual  practice.93  Hopes  for  a  similar 
extension  into  Cuba  were  shortly  to  be  aroused.  It 
was  feared  that  the  “abstract”  application  of  the  Pro¬ 
viso  to  New  Mexico  and  California  would  be  a  prece¬ 
dent  for  its  “practical”  application  to  other  portions  of 
Mexico  or  Cuba.  Because  of  these  fears,  H.  V.  John¬ 
son  declared  he  would  vote  against  the  “application  of 

91  National  Intelligencer,  October  21,  1847 ;  see  Cole,  The  Whig 
Party,  p.  122. 

82  See  Phillips,  Robert  Toombs,  p.  55. 

83  See,  e.g.,  the  Columbus  Times,  February  15,  1848. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


157 


the  Proviso  to  the  moon.”94  The  more  radical  Demo¬ 
crats  were  to  be  joined  in  this  position  by  Berrien  and 
the  more  radical  Whigs.95 

Early  in  January,  Senator  Douglas,  of  Illinois,  in¬ 
troduced  a  bill  providing  territorial  government  for 
Oregon,  to  which  Hale,  of  New  Hampshire,  moved  an 
amendment  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slavery 
therein.  This  at  once  raised  the  abstract  issue  of  the 
Proviso  and  so  precipitated  a  tense  debate  in  the  Sen¬ 
ate.  In  the  course  of  this  debate,  Calhoun,  in  line  with 
his  policy  of  forcing  the  issue  and  conducting  a  coun¬ 
ter-offensive  against  the  antislavery  forces,  claimed 
that  the  Constitution  “followed  the  flag”  into  all  the 
territories  and  consequently  guaranteed  the  protection 
of  slavery  therein.  Johnson,  of  Georgia,  supported 
him  in  this  contention,  as  might  have  been  expected,  as 
did  most  of  the  Georgia  congressmen  save  Stephens. 
Both  Berrien  and  Johnson  voted  against  Hale’s  amend¬ 
ment,96  which  was  defeated.  Davis,  of  Mississippi, 
then  moved  an  amendment  guaranteeing  slavery  in 
Oregon  while  under  the  territorial  government. 

Here  the  issue  was  complicated  by  the  receipt  of  a 
message  from  Polk  urging  the  territorial  organization 
of  the  vast  regions  of  California  and  New  Mexico.  In 
an  effort  to  solve  the  whole  problem,  the  question  of  all 
the  territories  was  finally  referred,  July  18,  to  a  special 
committee  of  which  Clayton,  of  Delaware,  was  made 
chairman.  On  July  20  this  committee  reported  the  bill 
generally  known  as  the  “Clayton  Compromise.”97 
This  bill  provided  territorial  government  for  the  three 

94  Speech  of  August  10,  Congressional  Globe,  loc.  cit.,  p.  1061. 

95  Berrien’s  views  are  noted  below  in  connection  with  his  “Address” 
of  1849. 

96  Congressional  Globe,  loc.  cit.,  p.  1061. 

97  Ibid.,  p.  956. 


158 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


territories,  prohibited  slavery  in  Oregon,  and  left  the 
question  of  slavery  in  the  other  two  to  the  Federal 
courts.  Should  the  courts  agree  with  Calhoun’s  thesis 
that  slavery  was  protected  by  the  Constitution  in  all 
the  “land,”  then  it  must  be  protected  in  conquered 
California  and  New  Mexico;  but  should  it  decide  that 
the  Constitution  did  not  necessarily  apply  to  the  terri¬ 
tories,  or  that  the  question  of  slavery  was  one  relating 
to  private  rather  than  public  law,  then  the  old  Mexican 
law  prohibiting  the  institution  must  be  maintained  de¬ 
spite  the  conquest. 

This  plan  to  refer  the  whole  matter  to  the  courts 
was  viewed  by  most  southern  men  as  a  real  compro¬ 
mise.  The  mass  of  the  Georgia  Democrats  had  clearly 
displayed  in  1847  a  desire  for  compromise,  and  while 
they  had  suggested  the  Missouri  line  or  “popular  sov¬ 
ereignty”  as  a  means  to  this  end,  they  could  be  ex¬ 
pected  to  support  the  Clayton  plan  or  any  other  that 
seemed  feasible.  It  was  natural,  therefore,  that  their 
representatives  in  Congress  should  have  supported  it. 
The  more  extreme  Calhoun  Democrats  in  Georgia 
were  opposed  to  compromise,  to  be  sure,  but  none  of 
this  type  were  in  Congress.  Johnson  in  the  Senate  and 
Iverson  and  Haralson  in  the  House,  despite  their  Cal¬ 
houn  leanings,  supported  the  Clayton  plan. 

The  Georgia  Whigs  had  evaded  the  issue  in  1847, 
now  they  must  meet  it.  As  was  to  be  expected,  they 
displayed  an  immediate  desire  to  compromise,  an  atti¬ 
tude  similar  to  that  of  the  Democrats.  Berrien  led  the 
way  in  the  Senate  by  working  zealously  for  Clayton’s 
plan.  Toombs  and  King  followed  him  in  the  House. 
Then  it  was  that  Stephens  did  the  unexpected  and 
apparently  risked  his  career  by  joining  with  northern 
members  to  defeat  the  proposed  solution.  His  expla- 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


159 


nation  was  simple.  Like  his  colleagues,  he  desired  the 
preservation  of  southern  rights  in  the  territories,  but 
he  feared  a  Supreme  Court  decision  would  hold  that 
the  Mexican  law  against  slavery  still  obtained  there. 
He  himself  was  convinced  that  this  was  the  case,  and 
he  intended  to  save  the  South  this  humiliation  even 
though  it  brought  him  universal  condemnation.98 

Meanwhile,  the  House  had  prepared  its  own  Ore¬ 
gon  Bill,  which  prohibited  slavery  in  that  territory.  In 
the  Senate  the  bill  was  amended  to  provide  for  the 
extension  of  the  Missouri  line  to  the  Pacific.  This 
Berrien  and  Johnson  supported,  the  plan  appearing  to 
them  as  a  compromise  in  substitution  for  that  of  Clay¬ 
ton.  Upon  its  return  to  the  House,  the  Senate  amend¬ 
ment  was  rejected  by  the  northern  majority,  but  every 
member  of  the  Georgia  delegation  voted  to  uphold  it.99 
Upon  its  return  to  the  Senate,  on  August  12,  Berrien 
and  Johnson  opposed  any  retreat  by  that  body  from  its 
position,100  but  on  the  last  day  of  the  session  the  House 
bill  was  accepted.  Polk  signed  it  under  protest.  The 
“Proviso”  was  thus  applied  to  Oregon. 

The  adjournment  of  Congress  left  the  status  of 
California  and  New  Mexico  still  a  matter  of  uncer¬ 
tainty.  Upon  this  question  the  struggle  in  Congress 
was  certain  to  be  bitter,  and  there  were  reasons  why 
this  crisis  should  be  evaded  or  at  least  postponed  by 
both  parties.  It  happened  that  1848  was  a  presidential 
year.  A.  crisis  would  divide  parties  along  sectional 
lines  and  would  risk  the  control  of  the  next  adminis¬ 
tration.  Hence  the  Proviso  problem  must  be  shelved 

®8  Ibid.,  p.  1055;  Johnston  and  Browne,  Life  of  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  pp.  229,  230;  Stephens  to  the  editor  of  the  Federal  Union. 
printed  in  that  paper  September  12,  1848;  and  in  the  Toombs,  Stephens, 
and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  117-124. 

98  Congressional  Globe,  loc.  cit.,  p.  1062. 

190  Ibid.,  p.  1078, 


160 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


again,  and  the  territories  must  wait  at  least  another 
half  year  for  organization. 

The  problem  of  nominations  for  the  presidency  had 
now  been  in  the  air  for  some  time.  Within  the  Whig 
ranks  there  were  two  serious  possibilities,  Clay  and 
Taylor.  From  the  viewpoint  of  many  southern  Whigs, 
the  former  was  disqualified  by  his  nationalism  and 
uncertain  attitude  towards  slavery,  as  well  as  by  his 
ominous  record  of  defeat.101  Crawford,  Toombs,  and 
Stephens  had  early  opposed  his  nomination  on  these 
grounds.102  Taylor,  on  the  other  hand,  was  not  only 
a  popular  hero,  but  a  southern  planter,  who  could  be 
trusted  to  protect  the  South  against  the  Proviso. 
Stephens  used  his  influence  at  home  to  secure  Taylor’s 
nomination  by  the  Georgia  Whig  convention  in  June. 
1847,  which  committed  the  state  party  to  Taylor.103 
He  was  also  a  leader  in  promoting  Taylor’s  cause  at 
Washington  at  the  close  of  the  year.104  The  Georgia 
Whig  press  was  uncertain  in  the  summer  of  1847  which 
of  the  two  candidates  to  support.  The  Milledgeville 
Recorder  came  out  late  in  May  as  the  first  journal 
clearly  to  support  Taylor,  which  it  continued  to  do  con¬ 
sistently  throughout  the  campaign.105  Some  of  the  party 
organs  attempted  to  compromise  by  urging  Clay  for 
president  and  Taylor  for  vice-president.106  Until  the 
Democratic  state  convention  met  at  the  end  of  June, 
1847,  the  Whig  press  was  afraid  the  Democrats  might 
“kidnap”  Old  Zach  for  their  nomination,  since  they 
claimed  him  as  their  “own  child.”107  After  this  con- 

101  Savannah  Republican.  March  10,  1848. 

102  Cole,  op.  cit.,  pp.  127,  128. 

103  Johnston  &  Browne,  op.  cit.,  p.  224. 

1<M  Avary,  Recollections  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  p.  21. 

Federal  Union,  June  1,  1847. 

109  Ibid.,  May  18,  1847. 

107  Savannah  Republican,  May  23;  Federal  Union,  May  25,  1847. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


161 


vention  had  adjourned  without  naming  Taylor,  there 
was  little  discussion  of  candidates  among  the  Whigs 
until  the  caucus  met  at  Millegdeville  in  December  and 
recommended  that  a  party  convention  meet  in  June, 
1848,  simply  to  choose  a  Taylor  electoral  ticket. 

Opposition  developed  in  January,  1848,  to  the 
nominations  of  Taylor  by  the  June  convention  and  by 
the  late  Whig  caucus,  on  the  ground  that  such  nomina¬ 
tions  followed  antiquated  methods  of  party  procedure. 
The  Savannah  Republican  began  to  favor  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  party  national  convention  and  to  urge  that 
a  Georgia  delegation  be  chosen  thereto.108  The  “con- 
solidationist”  principles  of  the  Augusta  Chronicle  at 
the  same  time  inclined  that  paper  to  a  similar  view. 
Only  the  Recorder ,  among  the  important  journals,  held 
out  for  ignoring  the  convention.109 

The  press  of  the  period  was  sensitive  to  the  opin¬ 
ions  of  party  leaders,  and  it  was  probably  their  pres¬ 
sure  that  swung  the  Whig  papers  into  line  for  Taylor 
during  the  winter  of  1848.  The  one  notable  Whig 
leader  who  held  out  for  Clay  was  Senator  Berrien. 
He  was  supported  in  Augusta  by  the  Republic ,  a  paper 
founded,  perhaps  for  that  purpose,  at  the  beginning 
of  the  year.  The  editor  was  James  M.  Smythe,  a 
former  associate  editor  of  the  Chronicle,  of  “inde¬ 
pendent”  inclinations.110  Berrien  and  Smythe  led  the 
small  band  of  Whigs  who  refused  to  join  the  rush  for 
Taylor.  Berrien  himself  had  long  been  a  friend  of 
Clay  and  had  been  associated  with  that  leader  in  advo¬ 
cating  such  Whig  principles  as  the  protective  tariff, 
the  Bank,  and  nationalism.  These  principles  were  now 
apparently  to  be  ignored  in  the  effort  to  run  a  man  who 

108  Savannah  Republican,  February  6,  1848. 

109  Savannah  Georgian,  February  8,  1848. 

110  Ibid.,  January  15,  1848. 


162 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


had  little  to  recommend  him  save  southern  origin  and 
military  renown.  The  opposition  of  the  Clay  Whigs  in 
the  South  may  perhaps  be  viewed  as  the  protest  of 
those  few  conservatives  who  “viewed  with  alarm”  the 
substitution  of  personalities  for  traditional  Whig 
issues  in  the  coming  campaign.  It  was  Berrien’s  con¬ 
tention  that  open  loyalty  to  the  traditional  party  prin¬ 
ciples  would  improve  the  prospects  for  a  successful 
campaign.111 

As  the  spring  approached,  the  press  campaign  for 
recognition  of  the  national  Whig  convention  suc¬ 
ceeded,  and  this  made  it  incumbent  upon  the  dominant 
Taylor  group  to  defend  their  favorite,  now  no  longer 
guaranteed  the  state’s  support  simply  because  of  the 
earlier  nominations.  The  state  convention  was  to 
meet  early  in  June  to  send  delegates  to  the  national 
convention  in  Philadelphia.  There  followed  a  cam¬ 
paign  for  Taylor  against  the  almost  isolated  opposi¬ 
tion  of  the  Augusta  Republic. 

However,  the  contest  was  hopeless  for  the  Clay 
minority  in  the  state.  The  party  convention  met  at 
Milledgeville  early  in  May  and  was  dominated  by  the 
Taylor  majority.  Smythe  spoke  in  favor  of  Clay  and 
offered  resolutions  declaring  the  party’s  attitude  to¬ 
wards  the  tariff,  the  currency,  and  the  war.  These 
resolutions  were  not  accepted,  but  the  majority  sought 
to  soothe  the  Clay  men  by  adopting  the  pretty  declara¬ 
tion  that  Clay  was  deserving  of  “the  undying  confi¬ 
dence  of  the  Whigs  of  Georgia.”  None  of  the  major¬ 
ity  opposed  this  lip-service  to  an  abandoned  chieftain 
— and  none  believed  it.  The  delegates  chosen  to  go  to 
Philadelphia  were  understood  to  be  Taylor  men,  though 

m  Berrien  to  J.  S.  Pendleton,  September  6,  1848,  Berrien  MSS.; 
Berrien  to  A.  F.  Owen ;  quoted  in  Miller,  Bench  and  Bar,  I.  78.  See 
Carroll,  Origins  of  the  Whig  Party,  chapter  v. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


163 


they  were  not  formally  bound  to  any  candidate.  They 
could  vote  for  anyone  “whose  views  on  the  Proviso 
and  Southern  Rights  accord  with  our  own.”112 

The  Whig  national  convention  nominated  Taylor 
without  serious  opposition  and,  as  was  expected, 
adopted  no  real  platform.  Fifteen  antislavery  north¬ 
ern  delegates  bolted  because  of  what  they  claimed  was 
southern  domination  of  the  meeting.  These  men 
merged  with  antislavery  Democrats  and  the  abolition¬ 
ists  of  the  “Liberty  Party”  to  form  the  “Free  Soil 
Party”  of  the  North,  which  nominated  Van  Buren  for 
the  presidency.  In  Georgia,  the  nomination  of  “Old 
Zach”  was  received  with  great  acclaim  by  all  Whigs 
save  the  small  Clay  element.  Some  of  the  latter,  like 
Berrien,  acquiesced  in  the  result  and  urged  all  to  do 
likewise.113  The  Whig  leaders  claimed  during  the 
campaign,  however,  that  most  of  the  Clay  men  refused 
all  support  to  the  party  candidate.114 

Meanwhile,  the  Democrats  were  threatened  with  a 
somewhat  similar  schism.  To  be  sure,  the  Democrats 
had  no  two  outstanding  rivals  to  decide  between.  In 
Georgia  the  party  convention  of  1847  pledged  them  to 
no  candidate,  but  required  simply  that  the  nominee  be 
an  anti-Proviso  man.  The  moderate  Democrats  were 
ready  to  accept  a  northern  leader  of  such  principles, 
though  they  preferred  a  southerner.115  In  the  late 
spring  of  1848,  however,  it  became  apparent  that  the 
feeling  among  the  Calhoun  Democrats  against  the 
North  was  rising,  which  meant  trouble  within  a  party 
committed  to  a  compromise  policy. 

112  Federal  Union ,  May  16,  1848. 

113  Berrien  to  Pendleton,  September  6,  1848;  Berrien  MSS. 

114  Toombs  to  Crittenden,  September  27,  1848;  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspendonce,  p.  128. 

116  W.  C.  Daniell  to  Cobb,  June  20 ;  T.  R.  R.  Cobb  to  Howell  Cobb, 
May  31,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence ,  pp.  106,  109. 


164 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


This  was  entirely  natural.  Another  session  of 
Congress,  with  its  attendant  debates  on  the  slavery 
issue,  had  enabled  the  southern  movement  to  make 
further  progress  in  the  minds  of  state-rights  Demo¬ 
crats.  The  last  Congress  had  seen  not  only  the  con¬ 
troversies  over  the  Oregon  Bill  and  the  Clayton  Com¬ 
promise,  but  had  also  witnessed  the  introduction  of 
another  Proviso  measure116  and  of  a  bill  to  abolish  slav¬ 
ery  in  the  District  of  Columbia.117  Even  conservative 
Whigs,  like  Toombs,118  and  Stephens,119  and  Demo¬ 
crats,  like  John  B.  Lamar,120  began  this  year  to  fear 
that  compromise  might  fail  in  the  face  of  so  persistent 
a  northern  attack,  in  which  case  they  felt  that  the 
Union  could  not  be  preserved.  It  was  in  the  spring  and 
summer  of  1848  that  the  possibility  of  a  dissolution  of 
the  Union  was  first  openly  discussed  in  Georgia. 

If  conservatives  began  to  have  their  doubts,  it  is 
not  strange  that  the  temper  of  the  state-rights  Demo¬ 
crats  was  rising.  The  outward  and  visible  sign  of 
this  spirit  early  in  1848  was  the  diversion  of  the 
Augusta  Constitutionalist  to  the  support  of  the  here¬ 
tofore  isolated  Macon  Telegraph  in  upholding  the 
“southern  movement.”  These  two  papers  began  to 
demand  the  nomination  of  a  southern  candidate  at  the 
coming  national  Democratic  convention.  The  stand  of 
the  T clegraph  in  particular  coincided  with  that  of  Cal¬ 
houn  and  so  threatened  trouble  for  the  moderate  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  party.  It  pointed  out  that  there  were  new 
and  dangerous  tendencies  in  the  northern  Democracy 
and  went  on  to  say : 

lw  Congressional  Globe,  30  Congress,  1  Session,  p.  391. 

117  Ibid.,  p.  872. 

173  Stoval,  Robert  Toombs,  p.  61. 

119  For  Stephens’  fears  see  Johnston  &  Browne,  op.  cit.,  p.  231. 

120  Lamar  to  Cobb,  July  12,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Corres¬ 
pondence,  p.  116. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


165 


We  should  demand  in  the  Baltimore  Convention,  that  all 
men  be  repudiated  unless  they  support  the  rights  of  the  South. 
The  admission  of  Wilmot  Proviso  delegates  should  be  the  signal 
for  the  delegates  of  the  Southern  states  to  withdraw.  Time¬ 
serving  politicians  may  counsel  the  South  to  slurr  over  this 
great  issue,  lest  the  harmony  of  the  party  be  broken,  but  we  tell 
our  delegates  from  Georgia  that  unless  the  Herkimer  delegates 
are  kicked  out  of  the  convention,  the  people  of  the  South  will 
not  feel  bound  by  its  action.  .  .  .  We  tell  our  delegates  to 

Beware !  In  maintaining  our  rightful  power  in  the  Confeder¬ 
acy  ...  we  will  sacrifice  if  need  be,  our  old  Party  ties, 
old  Party  favorites,  and  the  older  and  dearer  favorite,  the  very 
Union  itself  !121 

The  Democratic  press  generally  refrained  from 
attacking  such  sentiments  for  fear  of  alienating  the 
more  radical  journals  on  the  eve  of  the  convention. 
There  were  a  few  exceptions.  Holsey’s  Athens  Ban¬ 
ner ,  the  most  pro-Union  Democratic  paper,  did  become 
involved  in  controversy  with  the  Constitutionalist. 
Again,  when  the  Telegraph  deplored  the  Savannah 
Georgian’s  persistent  attacks  upon  Calhoun,  the  latter 
journal  retorted  that  the  Telegraph  had  denounced 
Cass  and  was  guilty  of  “an  overweening  devotion  to 
Calhoun.”122 

The  moderation  of  the  majority  of  the  Democratic 
journals,  in  refraining  from  attack  upon  the  Calhoun 
papers,  bore  fruit  in  the  state  convention  and  the  cam¬ 
paign.123  McAllister  and  Judge  Cone,  state-rights 
men,  led  the  delegation  that  was  sent  to  the  Baltimore 
convention.  There  they  shocked  the  moderates  at 
home  by  voting  for  Yancey’s  southern-rights  resolu¬ 
tions,  but  later  returned  the  liberalism  of  the  moder¬ 
ates  by  supporting  Cass,  of  Michigan,  after  the  second 

m  Macon  Telegraph,  in  the  Savannah  Republican,  May  25,  1848. 

123  Savannah  Georgian,  June  30,  1848. 

123  H.  L.  Jackson  to  Cobb,  June  21,  1848;  James  Jackson  to  Cobb, 
July  9,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  110,  116. 


166 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


ballot.124  Cass  was  nominated,  and  a  stand  on  the 
slavery  question  avoided. 

Both  of  the  radical  papers  upheld  Cass  in  the  cam¬ 
paign  that  followed.125  Despite  rising  feeling  on  the 
sectional  issue,  the  exigencies  of  the  presidential  cam¬ 
paign  thus  temporarily  averted  an  open  split  in  the 
Democratic  party.  Yancey’s  effort,  upon  his  return 
to  Alabama,  to  repudiate  the  Baltimore  nominations 
was  condemned  by  all  the  party  journals  in  Georgia.126 

This  conservatism  left  individual  southern-rights 
Democrats,  who  thought  the  situation  too  critical  to  be 
subordinated  to  party,  uncertain  and  discouraged.  A 
few  abandoned  their  old  newspapers  in  disgust.127 
Some  may  have  considered  voting  for  Taylor,  as  a 
southern  candidate,  but  there  was  no  open  movement 
in  this  direction,  and  no  real  Calhoun  Democrat  would 
have  been  likely  to  do  so.  Some  of  them,  like  Wilson 
Lumpkin,  continued  to  write  Calhoun  for  advice  and 
encouragement.  The  old  Georgia  leader  was  almost  in 
despair  at  the  apathy  of  his  people.  “United,”  he 
declared,  “the  South  could  conquer  a  peace.  But  it  is  so 
un-united.  Tens  of  thousands  .  .  .  are  all  against  us. 
Look  at  our  little  pigmy  Stephens  from  Georgia.  .  .  . 
Like  Van  Buren,  they  can  only  hope  for  the  distinction 
of  infamy,  but  they  prefer  that  to  obscurity.  .  .  . 
What  shall  we  do?”128  Senator  H.  V.  Johnson  be- 
seeched  Calhoun  to  send  them  “strong  letters,”  for 
“it  is  believed  that  will  be  of  much  service  to  us  in 

1M  Washington  Daily  Union,  May  27;  Savannah  Georgian,  June  6, 
1848. 

H.  L.  Jackson  to  Cobb,  June  21,  1848,  op.  cit.,  p.  116. 

129  Federal  Union,  June  19;  Columbus  Times,  June  19;  Georgian, 
June  3,  1848. 

m  Columbus  Times,  February  15,  1848. 

128  W.  Lumpkin  to  Calhoun,  August  25,  1848,  Calhoun  Papers.  For 
a  similar  letter  from  a  Whig  see  B.  F.  Porter  to  Calhoun,  July  17, 
1848,  Ibid. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


167 


Georgia,  that  it  will  go  far  to  unite  our  people  upon  the 
principles  upon  which  the  rights  of  the  South  ought  to 
be  maintained.”129 

Harmony  being  temporarily  preserved  among  the 
Democrats,  and  most  of  the  Whigs  holding  together 
for  Taylor,  the  order  of  the  day  now  became  the  attack 
upon  the  opposing  party.  Despite  all  the  din  and  fury 
of  the  presidential  campaign,  the  tactics  followed  by 
each  party  were  in  reality  simple  and  obvious.  Each 
strove  to  prove  that  the  other  was  not  to  be  trusted  to 
defend  the  South  against  northern  antislavery  aggres¬ 
sion.  The  other  group  was  leagued  with  abolitionists 
and,  for  the  sake  of  party  and  office,  would  betray  the 
home  land.  Each  claimed  its  own  northern  allies  were 
friends  to  southern  interests  and  that  it  alone  could, 
therefore,  save  the  section.  In  this  way,  the  ominous 
Proviso  problem  dominated  the  campaign,  though  it 
had  not  as  yet  seriously  divided  the  parties. 

The  Whigs,  of  course,  eulogized  Taylor  as  the 
great  hero  of  the  war.  After  some  lip-service  to  the 
principle  of  keeping  the  Proviso  issue  out  of  the  cam¬ 
paign,130  the  Whigs  hastened  to  occupy  the  vantage 
point  of  “southern  rights.”  Taylor,  the  southern 
planter,  was  the  only  candidate  the  South  could  trust. 
He  was  not  a  “northern  man  with  southern  principles,” 
but  “one  of  ourselves.”  Little  was  said  of  Fillmore, 
of  New  York,  the  vice-presidential  nominee,  other 
than  that  “he  is  well  known  for  his  efficient  public  ser¬ 
vices.”  The  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  had  nomi¬ 
nated  Cass,  a  northerner  of  uncertain  attitude  towards 
slavery.  They  were  leagued  with  him  and  with  Wil- 
mot  and  other  northern  abolitionists  and,  therefore, 

129  H.  V.  Johnson  to  Calhoun,  August  25,  1848,  Calhoun  Papers. 

130  Savannah  Republican,  May  25,  1848. 


168 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


could  not  take  true  southern  ground.131  Whig  readers 
were  aroused  by  such  startling  headlines  as  the  follow¬ 
ing: 

THE  SOUTH  BETRAYED 
or 

THE  IDENTITY  BETWEEN  THE  FRIENDS 
OF  GEN.  CASS,  THE  FREE  SOILERS  AND 
ABOLITIONISTS.  EXPOSED  AND  PROVED 
BY  DOCUMENTS  OF  UNQUESTIONABLE 

AUTHORITY.^ 

The  Milledgeville  Recorder  even  claimed  that  Cass  had 
voted  for  the  Wilmot  Proviso.  This  the  Democratic 
press  flatly  contradicted  and  challenged  the  enemy  to 
prove.133 

To  all  such  accusations  the  Democrats  replied  in 
kind.  In  1847  they  had  refrained  from  attacking  Tay¬ 
lor;  indeed,  they  had  defended  him,  even  after  the 
Whig  state  convention  had  nominated  him.134  The 
more  conservative  party  organs,  like  the  Georgian, 
withheld  attack  until  the  fall  of  1848,  when  Toombs 
wrote  that  they  still  “refrained  from  opposing  Taylor 
in  any  way.”135  This  statement,  however,  was  not  en¬ 
tirely  true.  Individual  Democrats  questioned  the  Gen¬ 
eral’s  opinions  on  slavery  in  1847,  and  others  ques¬ 
tioned  his  eligibility  early  in  1848.  The  Columbus 
Times,  for  instance,  opened  the  year  with  a  poetic 
rhapsody  beginning : 

131  Savannah  Republican,  May  15,  21,  23,  June  12,  1848;  Augusta 
Chronicle,  April  7,  June  12,  1848. 

132  Macon  Journal,  in  the  Republican,  October  14,  1848. 

w  Federal  Union,  June  20,  1848. 

134  When  a  Democrat  questioned  Taylor’s  “soundness”  in  the  summer 
of  1847  the  Democratic  Constitutionalist  defended  him.  See  T.  W. 
Thomas  to  Cobb,  July  7,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspon¬ 
dence,  p.  115. 

135  Toombs  to  Crittenden,  September  27,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  128. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


169 


Ungrateful  Taylor!  by  the  voice  of  Polk 
Thou  wast  from  naught  into  existence  spoke ! 

More  of  King’s  English  thou  had’st  slain  by  far 
Than  Indians  in  the  Seminole  War. 

Turn  now  and  study  what  to  thee  is  new — 

The  Constitution  and  the  statutes  too. 

It  concluded  with  the  thrilling  peroration : 

Thy  lofty  deeds  the  nation  still  shall  praise, 

And  wish  thee  better,  longer,  happier  days, 

O’er  thy  past  errors  it  will  still  lament 
But  never,  never,  make  thee  President!136 

Early  in  the  summer,  suspicion  of  Taylor’s  “sound¬ 
ness”  on  the  slavery  issue  began  to  be  expressed,137 
although  the  more  conservative  Democratic  press  hesi¬ 
tated  till  fall  to  declare  this  definitely.  By  that  time, 
the  open  claim  of  northern  Whig  papers  that  Taylor 
would  accept  the  Proviso,  if  it  passed  in  Congress, 
gave  the  Democrats  opportunity  for  direct  attack. 
Taylor’s  silence  was  now  interpreted  as  a  mask  for 
antislavery  opinions,  and  the  South  was  warned  that 
in  voting  for  him  as  a  true  southron  it  was  about  to 
be  “betrayed.”138 

Each  party  appealed  to  the  malcontents  in  the 
other  and  emphasized  dissentions  among  the  enemy. 
The  Whig  papers  agreed  enthusiastically  with  the  Cal¬ 
houn  Democrats’  indictment  of  northern  Democrats.139 
On  the  other  hand,  it  has  already  been  noted  that  the 
Democrats  encouraged  the  Clay  Whigs.  In  addition 
to  this,  they  made  the  most  of  the  apparent  split  be¬ 
tween  Stephens  and  Berrien  upon  the  Clayton  Com¬ 
promise.  The  debate  on  this  compromise  was  carried 

138  Columbus  Times,  January  2,  1848. 

137 Federal  Union,  May  30,  1848. 

138  Savannah  Georgian,  September  27,  October  2,  1848. 

139  Milledgeville  Recorder  in  the  Columbus  Times,  January  1,  1848; 
Savannah  Republican,  May  25,  1848. 


170 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


on  during  the  summer  in  Congress  and  was  certain  to 
echo  in  the  state  campaign.  The  dissension  between  the 
two  Whig  leaders  at  Washington  tended  to  emphasize 
the  divergence  of  Berrien  and  his  Clay  Whigs  from 
the  rest  of  the  state  party.  Berrien  was  supported,  as 
usual,  by  the  Augusta  Republic  and  mildly  by  the 
Savannah  Republican,  while  the  other  Whig  journals 
followed  the  Chronicle  in  defending  Stephens.140 
Some  Whigs  wrote  Stephens  anonymous  letters  oppos¬ 
ing  him,  and  Berrien,  while  upon  a  flying  trip  to  At¬ 
lanta,  was  assured  that  many  Whigs  in  that  section 
were  with  him.  The  Elder  Statesman  was  convinced 
that  only  sympathy  for  Stephens’  illness  prevented 
further  attacks  upon  him,  though  he  suspected  that 
Stephens  would  mistake  this  sympathy  for  political 
support.141  The  Democratic  journals  promptly  agreed 
with  Berrien,  and  their  attack  upon  Stephens  was  the 
most  bitter  move  of  the  campaign.142  Senator  Johnson 
carried  it  into  Stephens’  own  district,  where  the  latter 
was  a  candidate  for  reelection  to  the  national  House, 
and  even  appealed  to  Calhoun  for  direct  support  in 
annihilating  the  Whig  leader  upon  the  issue  of  the 
Clayton  Compromise.143 

Congressional  elections  were  to  be  held  in  Georgia 
early  in  October,  a  month  before  the  presidential  elec¬ 
tion.  Georgia  was  divided  at  the  time  into  eight  dis¬ 
tricts.144  The  results  in  most  of  these  could  be  pre¬ 
dicted  with  fair  certainty,  as  they  corresponded 
roughly  with  the  geographical  sections  whose  re- 

140  Augusta  Republic,  August  25,  in  the  Savannah  Georgian,  August 
31,  1848;  Augusta  Chronicle,  July  31,  August  25,  1848. 

141  Berrien  to  Major  Harris,  October  2,  1848;  Berrien  MSS. 

142  Federal  Union,  August  1  and  29;  Savannah  Georgian,  August  2, 
25,  and  31,  1848. 

143  H.  V.  Johnson  to  Calhoun,  August  25,  1848,  Calhoun  Papers. 

144  See  Map  No.  6,  p.  171. 


MAP  NO.  6 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


171 


spective  economic  interests  determined  political  align¬ 
ments.  The  fifth  and  sixth  districts  in  Upper  Geor¬ 
gia  were  practically  certain  to  go  Democratic  for 
Cobb  and  Hackett,  the  latter  replacing  John  H.  Lump¬ 
kin,  who  had  been  appointed  judge  of  the  superior 
court  for  the  Cherokee  circuit.  The  first  district, 
which  included  the  coast  and  Pine  Barrens  areas — 
sometimes  referred  to  together  as  “Lower  Georgia” — 
would  probably  go  for  the  Whig,  Thomas  B.  King. 
The  plantation  region  there  was  always  Whig,  as 
were  the  counties  of  Tattnall  and  Laurens  in  the  pines 
area.  The  only  uncertain  factor  was  the  city  of  Savan¬ 
nah  in  Chatham.  The  third  district  in  Central 
Georgia  was  expected  to  go  Whig  by  a  small  majority. 
The  presence  therein  of  the  exceptional  Democratic 
counties  of  Twiggs  and  Pike  and  the  city  of  Macon 
in  Bibb  promised  a  closer  vote  than  in  the  seventh  and 
eighth  districts  of  Central  Georgia.  These  two  were 
dominated  respectively  by  Stephens  and  Toombs,  who 
were  almost  certain  to  carry  them  by  large  majorities. 
The  second  district,  in  Southwest  Georgia,  was  the 
most  uncertain  in  the  state.  Here  the  population  had 
been  until  the  forties  largely  made  up  of  small  farmers, 
but  it  was  now  receiving  planters  as  they  moved  down 
to  the  new  lands. 

The  certainty  that  the  slavery  issue  would  be  the 
chief  one  before  the  next  Congress  gave  added  im¬ 
portance  to  the  congressional  election;  but  it  was  also 
certain  that  the  national  presidential  vote  would  be 
close,  and  this  gave  zest  to  the  more  dramatic  presi¬ 
dential  struggle.  The  feeling  among  the  rank  and  file 
of  both  parties,  however,  failed,  as  often  before,  to 
keep  up  with  that  of  politicians  and  editors.  There 


172 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


were  reports  that  the  people  were  apathetic.145  We 
are  in  the  midst  of  a  bitter  fight  among  editors  and 
candidates,”  wrote  Toombs,  “but  there  is  .  .  .  little 
excitement  among  the  people.  .  .  .”146  This  tendency 
of  politicians  to  overstate  feeling  and  viewpoints 
should  always  be  recalled  in  estimating  public  opinion 
in  the  state.  There  was  no  questioning  the  zeal  of  the 
“editors  and  candidates.” 

The  feeling  in  both  parties  was  not  improved  by  a 
vicious  personal  attack  upon  Stephens,  which  almost 
cost  him  his  life.  In  the  course  of  the  controversy  over 
his  vote  against  the  Clayton  Compromise,  Stephens 
had  been  bitterly  condemned  by  both  Senator  Johnson 
and  Judge  F.  H.  Cone,  the  latter  a  leading  Democratic 
delegate  to  the  recent  Baltimore  convention.  Steph¬ 
ens,  whose  personal  courage  was  as  pronounced  as  was 
his  physical  weakness,  challenged  Johnson  to  a  duel, 
and  met  with  a  dignified  refusal.  Johnson  was  cred¬ 
ited  with  the  remark  that  he  had  “a  soul  to  save  and  a 
family  to  support,  and  Stephens  has  neither.”  Cone 
engaged  in  a  number  of  verbal  tilts  with  Stephens 
which  led  to  misunderstandings  of  a  serious  character. 
The  two  happened  to  meet  upon  a  railway  platform  in 
Atlanta  on  September  3,  where,  after  a  brief  alterca¬ 
tion,  Stephens  struck  Cone  with  his  cane,  and  the  latter 
attacked  him  with  a  knife  with  apparent  intent  to  kill. 
Only  good  luck,  some  by-standers,  and  the  skill  of 
Doctor  Eve,  a  physician  of  the  Georgia  Medical  Col¬ 
lege,  saved  Stephens’  life.  The  attack  seemed  peculi¬ 
arly  brutal  for  the  reason  that  Cone  weighed  over 
two  hundred,  and  Stephens  but  ninety  pounds. 

145  W.  H.  Hull  to  Cobb,  July  22,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence. 

146  Toombs  to  Crittenden,  September  27,  1848,  ibid.,  p.  127. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


173 


The  Whig  press  immediately  claimed  that  the  at¬ 
tack  was  deliberate  and  political  in  character.147 
Stephens  was  to  be  “put  out  of  the  way,”  at  least  for  the 
rest  of  the  campaign.148  Democratic  journals  regretted 
the  tragedy,  but  implied  that  Stephens  shared  the  re¬ 
sponsibility  for  it.149  They  feared  that  the  martyrdom 
of  the  Whig  leader  would  lose  Democratic  votes  in  both 
Georgia  and  nearby  states  and  claimed  that  the  Whigs 
were  deliberately  attempting  to  make  political  capital 
of  the  incident.150  Cone  was  indicted,  pleaded  guilty, 
and  was  fined  eight  hundred  dollars.151  He  was  later 
entirely  reconciled  with  Stephens  and  in  1860  was 
honorably  known  in  the  state  as  the  “Nestor  of  the 
Ocmulgee  bar.”152 

As  the  October  congressional  elections  approached, 
the  Whigs  expressed  confidence,  and  the  Democrats 
some  anxiety.  Both  realized  that  the  vote  would  be 
close.  The  Whigs  were  more  confident  of  the  Taylor 
vote  for  November  than  they  were  of  the  congres¬ 
sional  results,  yet  Toombs  claimed  that  five  and  per¬ 
haps  six  of  the  eight  men  to  be  chosen  would  be 
Whigs.  The  actual  results  of  the  elections  fell  short 
of  Toomb’s  claims,  but  they  were  nevertheless  encour¬ 
aging  to  his  party.  The  total  Democratic  vote  in  the 
state  in  the  congressional  election  was  about  forty 
thousand,  in  excess  of  the  total  Whig  vote  by  only  two 
hundred  and  sixty.  This  was  another  excellent  indi- 

147  Macon  Journal,  September  5 ;  Savannah  Republican,  September  5 
and  6;  Chronicle,  September  5,  1848. 

148  Johnston  and  Browne,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  p.  233. 

148  Federal  Union,  September  19,  1848 ;  Georgian,  September  26,  1848. 

160  Federal  Union,  September  19,  26,  1848;  G.  S.  Houston  to  Cobb, 
September  23,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  126. 

151  Constitutionalist,  September  24;  Savannah  Georgian,  September  26 
1848. 

The  Plantation,  I.  82. 


174 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


cation  of  the  nice  balance  of  power  that  existed  be¬ 
tween  the  parties  in  the  state.  The  October  election 
was  more  significant  in  this  connection  than  the  presi¬ 
dential  election  in  November,  in  which  the  personal 
popularity  of  Taylor  prevented  typical  results.  As  a 
result  of  the  almost  evenly  divided  vote,  four  districts 
elected  Whig  and  four  Democratic  candidates.  Any 
slight  Democratic  excess  in  the  total  vote  failed  to  af¬ 
fect  this  equal  division,  perhaps  because  the  districts 
had  been  arranged  by  the  Whigs  with  a  view  to  just 
such  contingencies.153 

An  analysis  of  the  vote  by  districts  shows,  first,  that 
the  vote  was  generally  lighter  in  both  parties  in  Octo¬ 
ber  1848,  than  it  had  been  in  the  state  election  of  the 
preceding  year.  The  outstanding  phenomena  were 
small  Democratic  gains  in  Lower  Georgia  and  losses  in 
the  fifth  and  sixth  districts  of  LTpper  Georgia.  In 
Lower  Georgia,  there  were  slight  Democratic  losses  in 
the  interior  counties  of  the  Pine  Barrens — Appling, 
Tattnal,  and  Bulloch — but  gains  in  those  on  the  outer 
areas  of  that  region  and  the  coastal  counties.  In  Up¬ 
per  Georgia,  there  was  a  decided  falling  off  in  the 
Democratic  vote  as  well  as  a  decrease  in  that  of  the 
Whigs.154 

These  results  cannot  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
the  vote  for  governor  was  sometimes  larger  than  that 
for  representatives.  There  was  in  Upper  Georgia  a 
lack  of  interest  in  the  congressional  situation,  which 
surprised  and  humiliated  the  Democratic  leaders.155 

153  For  the  Whig  gerrymander  of  the  Democratic  belt  across  Central 
Georgia,  see  Map  No.  6,  p.  171,  showing  the  congressional  districts  in 
1848. 

151  This  analysis  is  based  on  the  county  returns  in  the  Savannah 
Georgian  and  Republican  for  October  13,  1848. 

165  Iverson  to  Cobb,  October  17,  1848;  G.  S.  Houston  to  Cobb,  October 
23,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  129,  130. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


175 


Apparently  the  impending  struggle  in  Congress  over 
the  slavery  question  was  not  of  such  interest  to  the 
poor  farmers  of  the  hills  as  to  bring  out  their  votes. 
On  the  other  hand,  an  increased  interest  was  mani¬ 
fested  on  the  coast  and  in  the  outer  counties  of  the 
Barrens,  where  the  Calhoun  faction  was  relatively 
strong. 

Frantic  efforts  by  the  leaders  to  bring  out  the  full 
Democratic  vote  in  Upper  Georgia  for  the  November 
presidential  election  were  fairly  successful,  but  led  to 
curious  results.  Thousands  deserted  Cass  and  voted 
for  Taylor.156  This  was  not  necessarily  due  to  any 
feeling  against  Cass  upon  the  sectional  issue.  They 
loved  not  Cass  less,  but  Taylor  more.  The  up-country 
people  were  sturdy,  but  ignorant  and,  therefore,  just 
the  type  to  whom  the  personal  appeal  of  a  military 
hero  was  strong.  This  was  as  true  in  1848  as  it  had 
been  in  1840.  The  logical  superiority  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  arguments  against  Taylor  probably  did  not 
reach  a  people  who  could  not  read  the  papers. 

There  was  some  defection  in  other  parts  of  the 
state,  presumably  for  similar  reasons.  In  Lower  Geor¬ 
gia,  for  instance,  there  was  defection  in  the  relatively 
illiterate,  interior  counties,  though  the  Democratic 
vote  in  Savannah  and  the  coast  counties  held  its  own 
as  compared  with  the  congressional  election.157  This 
was  probably  due,  first,  to  the  more  critical  attitude  of 
a  literate  population ;  second,  to  the  usual  appeal  to  the 
foreign  vote.  “Irishmen,”  proclaimed  the  Georgian, 
“remember  that  the  Whigs  abuse  General  Cass  because 
he  does  not  love  the  British.”158 

156  J.  F.  Cooper  to  Cobb,  November  11,  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  137. 

167  Savannah  Georgian,  September  13,  1849. 

158  Ibid.,  November  7,  1848. 


176 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


One  feature  of  the  Democratic  defection  should  be 
especially  noted.  All  the  leaders  were  loyal  to  the 
party  candidate.  In  a  day  when  newspapers  so  gen¬ 
erally  followed  political  leaders,  it  wTas  natural  that  all 
the  papers  were  also  loyal.  The  people,  however,  pur¬ 
sued  in  some  cases  a  course  quite  independent  of  poli¬ 
ticians  and  editors.  “Is  it  not  extraordinary,”  wrote 
a  friend  to  Cobb,  “that  so  large  a  ring  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party  has  deserted  without  a  solitary  leader? 
The  rank  and  file  have  rebelled  by  regiments.  .  .  .”159 
But  this  had  occurred  in  1840  and  would  occur  again 
in  1850,  and  the  tendency  to  vote  independently  in  im¬ 
portant  elections  may  be  termed  a  characteristic  of  the 
Georgia  Democracy  in  this  period.  For  this  reason, 
as  has  been  noted,  the  estimates  of  politicians  and  edi¬ 
tors  were  not  always  reliable  guides  to  the  state  of 
public  opinion. 

Democratic  defection  was  great  enough  to  give 
Taylor  a  majority  of  twenty-eight  hundred  votes  in 
the  state,  which  was  about  double  that  given  Governor 
Towns  in  1847  and  exceeded  that  of  Polk  in  1844  by 
about  eight  hundred.  The  loss  of  a  few  Clay  Whig 
votes  probably  prevented  the  Taylor  majority  from  be¬ 
ing  slightly  greater  than  it  was. 

Meanwhile,  Taylor  had  been  supported  by  the 
Whigs  of  other  southern  states  and  by  the  northern 
Whigs,  who  viewed  him  as  one  likely  to  oppose  slavery 
extension.  He  received  altogether  a  popular  majority 
of  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand  votes.  His  victory 
in  the  electoral  college  was  made  certain  by  Whig  suc¬ 
cess  in  New  York,  where  Democratic  losses  to  the  Free 
Soil  Party  seriously  handicapped  the  former  party. 

159  J.  F.  Cooper  to  Howell  Cobb,  November  11,  1848;  Toombs, 
Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  137. 


STORM  CLOUDS,  1844-1848 


177 


The  congressional  elections  throughout  the  country 
resulted  in  a  Whig  majority  of  ten  in  the  House,  which 
now  also  contained  thirteen  Free  Soil  members.160 

160  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I.  97. 


CHAPTER  V 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849 

The  effect  of  the  election  of  1848  on  the  position 
of  the  parties  in  the  South,  as  related  to  the  slavery- 
question,  was  marked  and  immediate.  The  Georgia 
Whigs,  whose  emphasis  upon  Taylor’s  southern  origin 
had  rather  accentuated  the  sectional  appeal,  now  had  to 
avoid  this  appeal,  lest  it  embarrass  their  incoming 
administration.  That  administration  would  need  the 
support  of  both  the  northern  and  southern  wings  of 
the  party,  and  there  was  need  for  cooperation  with 
northern  allies.  So  far  as  southern  interests  were 
concerned,  Taylor  himself  was  a  guarantee  of  their 
protection;  hence  there  was  no  cause  for  alarm  or 
agitation.  The  logical  consequence  of  victory,  there¬ 
fore,  was  conservatism,  a  policy  which  harmonized 
perfectly  with  Whig  economic  interests  and  traditions. 

The  Democrats,  on  the  other  hand,  were  now  to 
be  in  opposition  and  would  have  no  scruples  about 
embarrassing  the  new  government.  Cass  having  been 
defeated,  there  was  no  longer  the  same  necessity  for 
southern  men  to  defend  northern  leaders.  It  was  to  the 
interest  of  Georgia  Democrats  to  show  that  the  Taylor 
regime  could  not  be  trusted  to  protect  the  rights  of 
the  South.  Nor  was  there  any  lack  of  sincere  belief 
that  the  northern  Whigs  were  bent  upon  attacking  the 
South  and  that  southern  Whigs,  in  attempting  to 
maintain  their  alliance  with  them,  must  needs  be  trait¬ 
ors  to  their  section.  The  logical  consequence  of 
Democratic  defeat,  therefore,  was  more  militant  sec- 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  179 


tionalism,  a  policy  less  objectionable  to  Democratic 
interests  and  traditions  than  to  those  of  the  Whigs. 

In  Georgia  the  results  of  the  vote  were  scarcely 
known  before  this  realignment  on  national  issues  be¬ 
came  apparent.  Forsyth  exaggerated  the  new  con¬ 
servatism  among  the  enemy,  but  did  not  mistake  its 
general  trend,  when  he  wrote  (November  10)  :  “ The 
Whigs  in  our  streets  are  even  now  preparing  excuses 
for  General  Taylor,  in  the  event  that  he  ‘holds  his 
hand’  when  ‘the  Proviso’  is  presented  to  him.  The 
party  will  uphold  him  in  it.”1  Shortly  after  this  was 
written,  Toombs  appeared  in  Columbus  and,  in  speak¬ 
ing  on  the  Proviso,  urged  calmness  and  moderation. 
He  emphasized  the  fact  that  the  South  had  no  real 
practical  interest  in  the  southwestern  country.  Such 
statements  were  easily  misconstrued  by  Democrats  to 
mean  that  the  Georgia  Whigs  would  now  accept  the 
Proviso.2 

Meanwhile,  the  Democrats  began  to  view  with 
an  alarm  which  was  doubtless  sincere,  as  well  as 
politically  expedient,  the  coming  struggle  in  the  new 
Congress  over  the  territorial  problem.  This  struggle 
had  now  been  twice  postponed,  and  feeling  in  both 
sections  (at  least  among  politicians)  rose  with  each 
postponement  and  the  consequent  opportunity  for  fur¬ 
ther  agitation.  The  Georgian  explained  the  whole 
situation  to  its  readers.  There  was  real  danger  of  the 
passage  of  the  Proviso  now  and  uncertainty  as  to  Tay¬ 
lor’s  action  in  such  a  case.  The  position  of  the  South 
was,  therefore,  a  most  dangerous  one: 

“Arrayed  against  her  is  [.mY]  not  only  the  Northern  Proviso 
men  but  the  unenlightened  moral  opinion  of  the  world.”  The 

'John  Forsyth  (of  the  Columbus  Times )  to  Cobb,  November  10, 
1848;  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  136. 

1  Columbus  Times  in  the  New  Orleans  Bee,  December  16,  1848. 


180 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


South  might  temporarily  secure  peace  by  accepting  the  Proviso, 
without  immediate  injury  to  Georgia  or  the  other  slave-holding 
states,  but  the  difficulty  of  the  race  situation  would  make  such 
a  policy  suicidal.  Slave  numbers  would  increase  rapidly 
therein  until  the  slave  labor  system  would  become  so  burden¬ 
some  as  to  demand  emancipation.  And  what  then  ?  Experience 
proved  that  the  two  races  could  not  live  together  in  a  state  of 
social  equality.  The  result  of  emancipation  would,  therefore, 
be  the  ruin  of  both  races.  Would  Taylor  avoid  all  these  dan¬ 
gers  by  defeating  the  Proviso?  “Will  he  save  the  South  from 
facing  the  alternative  of  the  rights  of  the  Union  and  the  rights 
of  the  South?  No  common  hand  can  direct  through  the 
storms  that  impend.  God  save  the  Republic  !”3 

The  Democratic  journals  of  Augusta,  Macon,  Mil- 
ledgeville,  and  Columbus  were  even  more  agitated 
than  was  the  Georgian.  The  Constitutionalist  and 
Telegraph  had  only  restrained  temporarily  their  sym¬ 
pathy  for  Calhoun’s  southern  movement  during  the 
recent  campaign  and  now  returned  to  their  advocacy 
of  his  policy.  More  ominous  was  the  drift  of  the 
Times  and  the  Federal  Union  in  the  same  direction. 
The  latter,  which  had  condemned  “Yanceyism”  in 
the  fall,  now  openly  approved  resolutions  of  the 
South  Carolina  legislature,  which  declared  the  time 
for  discussion  of  the  Proviso  passed  and  called 
for  southern  unity  in  resisting  it  “at  every  hazard.”4 
Whig  editors,  in  reply,  asserted  their  confidence  in 
Taylor  and  denied  that  any  crisis  was  at  hand. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  affairs  were  approaching  a 
crisis  in  Congress,  and  there  were  indications  that 
popular  feeling  was  rising  in  some  sections.  Anti¬ 
slavery  agitation  was  increasing  in  the  North,  and 
proslavery  feeling  was  apparently  growing  in  the 
South.  The  fall  campaign  had  given  a  decided  im¬ 
petus  to  the  southern  movement  in  South  Carolina. 

*  Savannah  Georgian,  November  13,  1848. 

*  Federal  Union,  December  19,  1848. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  181 


In  November,  Governor  Johnson’s  message  to  the  leg¬ 
islature  of  that  state  urged  southern  political  unity  and 
the  call  of  a  southern  convention  as  the  best  means  to 
this  end.  Calhoun  “happened  in”  while  the  legislature 
was  considering  this  message  and  influenced  the  reso¬ 
lutions  which  that  body  passed  supporting  the  Gover¬ 
nor’s  views.5  Thus  fortified  by  the  support  of  the 
legislature,  Calhoun  proceeded  to  Washington  with 
the  determination  to  organize  in  Congress  that  unity 
among  southern  delegates  he  had  long  desired.  The 
impending  struggle  there  was  bound  to  react  favor¬ 
ably  in  southern  states  other  than  his  own.  The  time 
seemed  to  him  ripe  at  last  for  the  open  formation  of  a 
southern  party  and  for  the  final  decision  which  such 
a  party  would  demand. 

He  did  not  have  long  to  wait  for  an  occasion  justi¬ 
fying  his  first  move.  President  Polk,  a  moderate 
southern  Democrat,  urged  in  his  December  message 
that  Congress  adopt  some  compromise  on  the  terri¬ 
torial  issue.  The  antislavery  majority  in  the  House 
ignored  this  recommendation  and  proceeded  with  a 
militant  effort  to  adopt  the  Proviso.  On  December  13, 
1848,  the  House  instructed  its  territorial  committee  to 
bring  in  bills  providing  territorial  organization  of  Cali¬ 
fornia  and  New  Mexico  excluding  slavery.6  In  ad¬ 
dition,  resolutions  were  introduced  forbidding  slavery 
in  the  District  of  Columbia.7  On  December  21  the 
resolution  of  Giddings,  of  Ohio,  was  passed  instruct¬ 
ing  the  committee  on  the  District  to  report  a  bill  pro¬ 
hibiting  the  slave  trade  therein.8  This  move  created 

5  Hamer,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  pp.  28-29. 

6  Congressional  Globe,  30  Congress,  2  Session,  p.  39. 

'  Ibid.,  pp.  38,  55. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  84;  J.  R.  Giddings,  History  of  the  Rebellion  (1864), 
p.  276^ 


182 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


intense  indignation  among  southern  members  and  led 
immediately  to  a  call  for  the  meeting  of  a  southern 
caucus.  The  call  was  generally  ascribed  to  Calhoun, 
though  this  was  denied  in  Georgia,  when  the  conser¬ 
vative  Democrats  used  his  name  to  discredit  the 
meeting.9 

The  caucus  was  attended  by  some  eighty  members  of 
both  parties.  Most  of  the  Whigs  went  with  the  sole 
intention  of  thwarting  any  unified  or  radical  action 
which  Calhoun  and  his  friends  might  suggest.  This’ 
was  also  the  motive  of  the  conservative  Democrats, 
among  whom  Cobb  was  the  outstanding  leader.  The 
latter’s  association  with  the  Union  Democrats  in 
Georgia  and  the  conservative  northern  leaders  of  the 
party  strongly  disinclined  him  to  a  “Southern  Move¬ 
ment.”  He  and  his  colleague,  Lumpkin,  conferred  with 
the  President  before  going  to  the  caucus,  and  Polk 
naturally  encouraged  them  in  their  intention  to  oppose 
Calhoun.10 

The  caucus  first  met  in  the  Senate  chamber  on 
December  23.  All  the  Georgia  members  were  present 
and  took  a  prominent  part  in  its  proceedings.  Indeed, 
it  soon  appeared  that  the  three  Georgians,  Toombs, 
Stephens,  and  Cobb,  were  the  leaders  of  the  conserv¬ 
atives  of  both  parties  in  opposing  Calhoun’s  program. 
The  Carolinian  introduced  a  strong  “Southern  Ad¬ 
dress”  which  the  Georgia  triumvirate  boldly  but  un¬ 
successfully  denounced,  this  paper  being  adopted  in  a 
final  session  of  the  caucus  on  January  22.  Only  two 
Whigs  were  in  favor  of  Calhoun’s  address,  but  the 
Democrats  voted  almost  solidly  for  it.  Cobb  and 

’  H.  V.  Johnson  to  Calhoun,  June  28,  1849,  Calhoun  Papers. 

“Quaife,  M.  M.  (Ed.),  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk,  IV.  280.  281. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  183 


Lumpkin  were  followed  by  but  two  other  Democrats 
in  voting  against  it. 

Toombs,  Stephens  and  Cobb  were  severely  criti¬ 
cized  for  their  opposition,  Iverson  of  Georgia  joining 
Calhoun  in  the  attack  on  the  triumvirate.  Berrien 
attempted  to  pour  oil  upon  troubled  waters  by  submit¬ 
ting  a  proposed  appeal  to  the  nation,  which  he  hoped 
would  be  acceptable  to  both  the  conservatives  and  the 
extremists  and  which,  of  course,  was  acceptable  to 
neither.  Cobb  then  issued  in  self-defence  an  “Ad¬ 
dress”  of  his  own,  which  explained  the  position  of  the 
conservative  Democrats.11 

There  issued  from  the  caucus,  therefore,  three 
separate  addresses,  those  of  Calhoun,  Cobb,  and  Ber¬ 
rien,  though  only  the  first  was  formally  adopted.  Out¬ 
side  of  Georgia,  of  course,  it  was  Calhoun’s  address 
which  was  of  primary  importance.  This  contained  an 
able  restatement  of  his  general  sectional  philosophy. 
After  reviewing  the  history  of  the  antislavery  move¬ 
ment,  it  decared  that  the  inevitable  consequence  thereof 
was  abolition.  The  South  must,  therefore,  defend  her¬ 
self  at  all  hazards.  The  specific  remedy,  however,  was 
left  to  the  southern  people.  Postponement  of  the  in¬ 
evitable  decision  would  but  strengthen  the  North  and 
weaken  the  South  against  a  final  reckoning.12  The 
argument  was  perfect  and,  in  the  light  of  later  events, 
undoubtedly  prophetic. 

11  For  general  accounts  of  the  southern  caucus  see  Cole,  The  Whig 
Party  in  the  South,  pp.  140,  141;  Phillips,  Robert  Toombs,  p.  62;  for  the 
activities  of  Georgia  members  see  Savannah  Georgian,  January  1,  Febru¬ 
ary  1 ;  Charleston  Mercury,  February  2,  1849 ;  Baltimore  Sun,  December 
27,  1848;  Toombs  to  Crittenden,  January  22,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  141,  etc. 

12  Calhoun,  Works,  VI.  290-313. 


184 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  address  written  by  Cobb  followed  lines  already 
laid  down  by  him  during  the  previous  fall.13  It  was  a 
Democratic  protest  against  the  formation  of  a  south¬ 
ern  party.  Calhoun,  in  his  effort  to  attract  southern 
Whigs  to  his  movement,  had,  it  declared,  attacked 
northern  Democrats  equally  with  northern  Whigs. 
This  was  unfair  to  the  former,  who  had  in  their  ranks 
many  more  friends  of  the  South  than  had  the  other 
party.  For  this  very  reason,  the  national  Democracy 
could  be  trusted  to  protect  the  South,  while,  by  the 
same  token,  national  Whiggery  could  not.  The  south¬ 
ern  Whigs,  moreover,  could  not  be  expected  to  join  a 
southern  party  which  would  oppose  an  administration 
they  had  just  helped  to  put  into  office.  Hence  the 
southern  party  could  not  possibly  accomplish  its  pur¬ 
pose,  and,  even  if  it  could,  its  formation  would  endan¬ 
ger  rather  than  preserve  the  country.  The  Democracy 
alone  could  save  both  the  South  and  the  Union.14 

Berrien’s  address  was  a  carefully  worded  appeal 
to  the  American  people  to  compromise  the  slavery 
problem  before  it  was  too  late.  There  was  no  phase 
of  it  which  could  not  be  settled  if  the  two  sections 
would  but  be  fair  to  one  another.  The  District  prob¬ 
lem  could  be  adjusted,  and  the  precedent  of  1820 
showed  that  the  same  was  true  of  the  territorial  ques¬ 
tion.  If  the  South  was  contending  for  an  abstraction 
in  the  Southwest,  the  “Provisoists”  were  also  pursuing 
a  phantom.  There  was  a  real  possibility  of  the  future 
expansion  of  slavery  in  the  tropics,  however,  and  this 

13  Cobb  to  a  Committee  of  Citizens  in  Charleston,  S.  C.,  November 
(4?),  1848,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  134,  135. 

14  To  Our  Constituents,  By  Messrs.  H.  Cobb,  L.  Boyd,  B.  L.  Clark 
and  John  H.  Lumpkin,  (Washington,  D.  C.,  1849).  Also  printed  in 
Niles’  Register,  LXXV.  231,  232;  Savannah  Georgian,  March  14,  1849; 
reprinted  in  the  Cobb  Papers,  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  V.  No.  2, 
39-52. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  185 


territorial  problem  must  therefore  be  definitely  settled. 
A  real  compromise  which  was  fair  to  the  South  could 
be  accepted  by  all  and  might  be  reached  under  the 
coming  administration.  It  was  not  to  be  achieved  by 
any  one  party.15 

Such  was  the  substance  of  the  three  addresses 
which  issued  from  the  southern  caucus.  Meanwhile, 
the  regular  sessions  of  Congress  continued,  and  with 
them  the  further  agitation  of  the  slavery  issue.  No 
solution  of  the  territorial  problem  had  been  found, 
however,  when  Congress  adjourned  for  the  inaugura¬ 
tion  of  Taylor  early  in  March.  Congress  had  failed 
to  find  any  formula  acceptable  to  the  entire  nation, 
just  as  the  caucus  had  failed  to  find  any  acceptable  to 
the  entire  South. 

Once  again  the  scene  of  the  sectional  drama  shifted 
from  Washington  to  the  states.  What  would  be  the 
effects  of  the  last  session’s  agitation,  and  especially  of 
the  southern  caucus,  upon  public  sentiment  “back 
home”?  The  response  in  South  Carolina  to  the  early 
developments  in  Congress  had  been  the  passage  by  the 
state  legislature  of  resolutions  declaring  readiness  to 
cooperate  with  other  southern  states  in  resistance 
to  the  Proviso  at  any  cost.  Excitement  there  was  so 
intense  that  one  faction  led  by  R.  B.  Rhett  was  ready 
for  immediate  and  independent  action,  though  the 
majority  were  “cooperationists”  and  awaited  the  ac¬ 
tion  of  the  sister  states.16  Virginia  was  the  first  which 
apparently  responded  to  this  appeal,  for  on  January  20 

“  “Address  to  the  People  of  the  United  States,  by  John  McPherson 
Berrien,”  in  the  Savannah  Republican,  February  5,  1849.  This  address 
has  received  little  or  no  attention,  in  comparison  with  the  other  two,  but 
it  has  significance  in  connection  with  Berrien's  subsequent  position  in 
Georgia. 

“Hamer,  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  p.  27. 


186 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


its  legislature  reaffirmed  its  own  resolutions  of  1847, 
promising  resistance  to  the  Proviso,  and  added  new 
ones  requesting  the  governor  to  convene  the  legisla¬ 
ture  in  case  either  the  Proviso  or  laws  abolishing 
slavery  or  the  slave  trade  in  the  District  were  passed 
by  Congress.17 

Between  February  and  April,  1849,  resolutions 
were  passed  in  the  legislatures  of  Missouri  and  Ala¬ 
bama  upholding  Calhoun’s  address;  in  Tennessee  de¬ 
clarations  calling  for  united  southern  resistance  were 
adopted.  The  most  significant  action,  however,  was 
taken  in  Mississippi.  The  congressional  delegation  of 
that  state,  unlike  that  of  Georgia,  had  been  united  in 
support  of  the  “Southern  Address.”  This  suggested 
that  Mississippi  was  to  rank  next  to  South  Carolina  in 
the  demand  for  a  unified  South.  Events  in  the  spring 
seemed  to  substantiate  this  suggestion,  for  a  call  was 
issued  by  prominent  citizens  of  Jackson  for  a  non-par¬ 
tisan  convention  to  meet  in  that  city  on  May  7,  1849, 
to  consider  northern  aggressions  and  the  proper  rem¬ 
edy  for  the  same.  The  convention  met  as  scheduled 
and,  after  passing  resolutions  of  a  general  character 
concerning  slavery  and  the  rights  of  the  South,  itself 
issued  a  call  for  a  state  convention  to  meet  early  the 
next  October,  to  be  composed  of  an  equal  number  of 
Whigs  and  Democrats.  This  body,  representing  all 
the  people  of  both  parties,  was  to  be  authorized  to 
express  the  state’s  attitude  towards  the  slavery  con¬ 
troversy.  The  harmonious  cooperation  of  the  two 
parties  in  issuing  the  call  was  the  first  indication  out¬ 
side  of  South  Carolina  of  the  progress  of  a  real 
southern  movement.18 

17  Congressional  Globe,  30  Congress,  2  session,  p.  441. 

“  Cleo  Hearon,  Mississippi  and  the  Compromise  of  1580,  pp.  46-50. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  187 


While  the  southern  states  were  passing-  resolutions, 
the  northern  states  were  even  more  active  in  this  re¬ 
spect.  Their  legislatures  proceeded  through  the  win¬ 
ter  and  spring,  almost  without  exception,  to  declare 
the  right  of  Congress  to  exclude  slavery  from  the  ter¬ 
ritories  and  the  desirability  of  so  doing. 

Meanwhile,  what  of  Georgia?  The  addresses  is¬ 
sued  from  the  southern  caucus  reached  the  state  at  the 
end  of  January.  As  two  of  them  were  the  work  of 
Georgians,  and  the  third  that  of  the  great  leader  across 
the  river,  they  were  bound  to  arouse  unusual  interest. 
Discussion  of  them  had  barely  begun  when  word  came 
of  the  resolutions  of  Virginia,  and  then,  as  the  year 
progressed,  of  those  of  other  states.  These  events  of 
the  winter  of  1849  introduced  two  new  elements  into 
the  situation  in  the  “Empire  State.”  The  first  was  an 
echo  of  the  demand  in  Congress  for  a  more  stringent 
fugitive  slave  law.  This  may  be  viewed  as  a  phase  of 
the  growing  militancy  characteristic  of  the  general 
position  of  the  southern  Democrats.  The  second  was 
the  secret  conversion  of  a  few  able  and  extreme  south¬ 
ern-rights  Democrats  to  a  belief  in  the  advisability  of 
immediate  secession.  The  most  obvious  effect  of  the 
winter’s  agitation,  however,  was  simply  to  emphasize 
tendencies  already  noticeable  after  the  presidential 
election  in  the  fall  of  1848. 

The  Democrats  of  Upper  Georgia  tended,  as  would 
have  been  expected,  to  support  Cobb’s  opposition  to 
Calhoun  and  approved  his  “Minority  Address.”19  Hol- 
sey,  of  the  Banner,  did  become  somewhat  alarmed  by 

19  T.  W.  Thomas  to  Cobb,  February  16,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  152;  W.  H.  Hull  to  Cobb,  January  26,  1849, 
ibid.,  p.  142 ;  Augusta  Chronicle,  March  28,  April  4,  1849. 


188 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


adverse  criticisms  he  had  heard,20  but  the  reports  he 
sent  Cobb  did  not  seem  to  worry  that  leader.  The  lat¬ 
ter  continued  at  Washington  to  cooperate  with  the 
conservative  northern  Democrats  and  to  maintain  his 
stand  against  Calhoun.  “God  grant  that  we  may  be 
able  to  floor  the  old  reprobate,”  he  wrote  his  wife,  “and 
thereby  preserve  the  honor  of  the  South  and  secure 
the  permanency  of  the  Union.  If  it  would  please  our 
Heavenly  Father  to  take  Calhoun  and  Benton  home  I 
should  look  upon  it  as  a  national  blessing.”21  On  his 
return  to  the  state  early  in  the  summer  he  wrote  Buch¬ 
anan,  who  had  begun  to  fear  the  Georgian  might  lose 
his  district  in  the  contest  with  the  Calhounites,  that  his 
stand  was  entirely  approved  by  his  constituents.22 

The  effect  of  the  winter’s  excitement  upon  the 
Democrats  of  Central  Georgia  was  another  matter.  To 
this  section  returned  Senator  H.  V.  Johnson  and  Rep¬ 
resentatives  Iverson  and  Haralson,  signers  of  the 
“Southern  Address.”  They  were  full  of  fight  and 
desirous  of  backing  the  appeal  for  a  sectional  move¬ 
ment,  though  it  is  probable  that  they  still  hoped  such  a 
movement  would  redound  to  the  advantage  of  the 
Democracy.  Calhoun’s  address  and  the  new  Virginia 
resolutions  received  immediate  support  from  the 
Democratic  editors  of  the  Black  Belt  even  before  the 
congressmen  returned.  It  has  already  been  noted  that 
the  election  of  1848  had  persuaded  many  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  editors  to  support  the  southern  movement,  and 
the  winter’s  developments  so  furthered  this  tendency 

20  Holsey  to  Cobb.  February  13,  24,  1849;  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  pp.  149,  154. 

21  Cobb  to  his  wife,  February  8,  1849,  “Cobb  Papers,”  Georgia  His¬ 
torical  Quarterly,  V.  No.  2,  p.  38. 

22  Cobb  to  Buchanan,  June  17,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Cor¬ 
respondence,  p.  164. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  189 


as  to  convert  all  of  them  outside  of  Upper  Georgia  to 
the  radical  creed.  Opinions  became  more  decided  and 
aggressive,  most  of  Calhoun’s  ideas  being  incorporated 
in  the  Georgia  editorials.23  The  possibility  of  seces¬ 
sion  was  more  openly  discussed  than  in  the  preceding 
year,  and  a  running  controversy  developed  with  certain 
northern  papers  as  to  the  probable  consequences  of  this 
“last  resort.”24  A  politic  silence  was  maintained,  how¬ 
ever,  with  regard  to  Cobb’s  “Minority  Address”  in  an 
obvious  effort  to  avoid  further  friction  between  the 
Cobb  and  Calhoun  factions  in  the  state  party.25 

A  few  extreme  leaders  in  Central  Georgia  became 
converted  by  the  spring  of  1849  to  a  belief  in  the  in¬ 
evitable  necessity  of  secession — as  it  was  put  in  those 
days,  they  came  to  believe  in  “secession  per  se”  Pro- 
haps  the  most  remarkable  leader  of  this  group  was 
Henry  L.  Benning,  a  lawyer  of  Columbus  and  then  but 
thirty-five  years  of  age.26  He  wrote  Cobb  frankly  of 
his  new  convictions,  which  were  remarkable  in  more 
respects  than  one.  Secession,  he  felt,  was  a  necessary 
but  by  no  means  a  complete  solution  of  the  problem 
facing  the  South.  The  new  Southern  Confederacy,  he 
declared,  should  be  a  “consolidated”  republic,  in  order 
“to  put  slavery  under  the  control  of  those  most  inter¬ 
ested  in  it.”21  Such  a  secessionist  was,  indeed,  like  the 
extreme  Whigs,  a  “very  Federalist”  in  his  constitutional 

23  See,  e.g.,  Federal  Union ,  April  3,  1849. 

24  See,  e.g.,  Philadelphia  North  American,  January  3,  1849 ;  cf.  Colum¬ 
bus  (Ga.)  Times,  January  16,  1849. 

25  Federal  Union,  January  30,  1849. 

29  See,  for  his  biography,  the  article  by  his  daughter  in  Men  of  Mark 
in  Georgia,  III.  259;  A.  R.  Lawton,  Judicial  Controversies  on  Federal 
Appellate  Jurisdiction,  Presidential  Address,  the  38th  Annual  Meeting  of 
the  Georgia  Bar  Association,  (Tybee,  Ga.,  1921),  pp.  21,  22. 

27  Benning  to  Cobb,  July  1,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Corre¬ 
spondence,  p.  171. 


190 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


principles,  and  differed  from  them  only  with  regard  to 
the  expediency  of  having  a  national  or  sectional  union. 
Planter  interests  demanded  a  “consolidated”  govern¬ 
ment  in  either  case.  For  such  a  secessionist  as  Ben- 
ning,  therefore,  the  state-rights  plea  was  but  a  political 
expedient — one  useful  in  destroying  the  old  Union,  but 
to  be  abondoned  in  creating  the  new.28 

Benning,  however,  could  not  speak  for  the  mass  of 
the  people  of  Central  Georgia,  although  he  did  write 
Cobb  that  he  had  personally  met  but  one  Democrat 
about  Columbus  who  supported  Cobb’s  position.29 
Other  leaders  of  the  Calhounites  had  resorted  during 
the  winter  and  spring  of  1849  to  the  usual  expedient 
of  “getting  up”  popular  meetings,  both  to  stimulate 
and  to  express  public  feeling.  Some  half  dozen  os¬ 
tensibly  non-partisan  meetings  were  held,  which  the 
Democrats  claimed  were  large  and  enthusiastic,  and 
which  the  Whig  press  declared  were  attended  only  by 
Democrats  and  by  very  few  of  them.  Indeed  the  Whig 
press  was  quite  specific,  publishing  lists  of  meetings 
and  estimated  attendance  which  do  not  seem  to  have 
been  definitely  denied  by  the  Democratic  papers.30 
Whig  editors  in  Central  Georgia  echoed  the  Demo¬ 
crats  of  Upper  Georgia  in  the  statement  that  the 

28  He  has  been  described,  indeed,  as  “an  ardent  States  Rights  man,” 
and  so  he  was,  so  far  as  relations  with  the  actually  existing  Union  were 
concerned.  As  a  member  of  the  Georgia  Supreme  Court  during  the 
fifties,  his  opinions  voiced  the  most  extreme  views  of  that  school.  See 
Lawton,  op.  cit.,  p.  21.  Cf.  F.  L.  Owsley,  State  Rights  in  the  Con¬ 
federacy,  pp.  1-3. 

29  Benning  to  Cobb,  July  1,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Corre¬ 
spondence,  p.  171.  Cf.  H.  D.  Foster,  “Webster’s  Seventh  of  March 
Speech  and  the  Secession  Movement,  1850,”  American  Historical  Revieu\ 
XXVII.  250. 

30  For  enthusiastic  Democratic  accounts  of  public  meetings,  see  Federal 
Union,  January  23;  Columbus  Times,  February  6;  Charleston  Mercury. 
March  23,  1849.  For  Whig  figures  and  criticisms  see  the  Chronicle, 
March  27,  May  14;  Republican  May  28,  1849. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  191 


southern  movement  appealed  only  to  editors  and  poli¬ 
ticians,  and  that,  despite  all  the  fuss  the  latter  were 
creating,  the  masses  were  unmoved.31  There  was  in¬ 
deed  little  evidence  in  the  few  public  meetings  held 
early  in  1849  to  indicate  popular  excitement. 

In  a  word,  the  Democratic  editors  and  politicians 
were  now  engaged  in  the  difficult  task  of  arousing  an 
inert  public  opinion,  prior  to  the  actual  commission  of 
any  overt  act  by  the  North.  Calhoun’s  address  may 
have,  as  Holsey  put  it,  “prepared  men’s  minds  for 
trouble,”  but  it  can  hardly  be  said  to  have  aroused  the 
people  of  Central  Georgia  in  1849.  What  a  persistent 
press  campaign  might  do  by  the  end  of  the  year  re¬ 
mained  to  be  seen. 

The  reaction  of  the  Whigs  to  congressional  devel¬ 
opments  in  the  winter  of  1849  is  somewhat  easier  to 
follow  than  is  that  of  the  Democrats,  for  the  reason 
that  less  division  obtained  among  them,  and  that  what 
division  did  exist  did  not  follow  the  sectional  lines  that 
tended  to  divide  the  Democrats.  The  Whigs,  like  the 
Democrats,  had  to  face  divergent  action  on  the  part 
of  their  representatives  in  the  southern  caucus.  There 
was  the  embarrassing  contrast  between  the  efforts  of 
Toombs  and  Stephens  to  break  up  the  caucus  and  the 
desire  of  Berrien  to  have  it  publish  some  sort  of  an 
“Address.”  The  Whigs  avoided  taking  sides  in  this 
divergence  of  opinion.  The  attitude  of  Toombs  and 
Stephens  was  generally  praised,  but  in  Savannah 
there  was  also  some  moderate  editorial  approval  of 
Berrien’s  address.  Calhoun’s  address  was  termed 
“provocative,”  while  that  of  the  Georgia  Whig  sen¬ 
ator  was  “firm  yet  conciliatory.”32  The  Augusta 

31  W.  H.  Hull  to  Cobb,  January  26,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
•Correspondence,  p.  142;  Republican,  May  28;  Chronicle,  May  14,  1849. 

32  Savannah  Republican,  February  15,  1849. 


192 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Republic  was  of  the  same  opinion.  The  more  con¬ 
servative  Whig  journals,  led  by  the  Chronicle,  were 
generally  silent  on  Berrien’s  position. 

The  Whig  attitude  toward  Cobb’s  Address  was 
uncertain.  Democratic  minority  factions  should  be 
encouraged,  of  course,  and  Cobb’s  views  agreed  with 
those  of  the  Whigs  in  opposition  to  the  southern 
movement.  On  the  other  hand,  his  address  had 
featured  a  denunciation  of  the  northern  Whigs  and 
the  consequent  condemnation  of  that  party  as  “un¬ 
sound.”  This  was  not  to  be  welcomed  by  the  Whigs 
so  long  as  they  still  clung  to  Taylor  and  the  national 
organization.  Hence  there  was  some  criticism  of  the 
“Minority  Address”  on  these  grounds.33 

The  Georgia  Whig  journals  admitted  that  the 
northern  legislatures  had  passed  many  resolutions  of 
an  insulting  character,  but  these  were  but  “words,” 
and  wise  men  would  wait  for  deeds  before  stirring  up 
trouble.  After  all,  observed  the  Chronicle,  the  Whigs 
were  the  largest  slave  holders,  and  if  they  were  not 
alarmed  for  the  safety  of  the  institution  in  which  they 
had  the  greatest  interest,  why  should  others  be  so  ?  It 
was,  indeed,  most  kind  of  the  Democrats  to  insist  upon 
“protecting”  the  Whigs’  economic  interests,  but  would 
it  not  be  in  better  taste  to  await  an  invitation?34 

As  was  to  be  expected,  the  Whig  leaders  who  op¬ 
posed  the  southern  movement  featured  its  South 
Carolina  leadership  and  appealed  to  the  traditional 
Georgia  feeling  against  the  neighboring  state.  Their 
newspapers  had  long  been  ironical  and  bitter  at  the 

33  Augusta  Chronicle,  June  22,  1849. 

34  Augusta  Chronicle,  April  25,  1849.  This  point  did  sometimes  con¬ 
fuse  the  Democrats,  who  had  usually  not  clearly  analyzed  Whig  motives 
for  conservatism.  See,  e.g.,  W.  H.  Hull  to  Cobb,  January  26,  1849, 
Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  148. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  193 


mention  of  Calhoun’s  name.  First  they  ridiculed  his 
domination  of  the  sister  state.  “Mr.  Calhoun  took 
snuff  yesterday,  about  2  P.  M.,”  observed  the  Repub¬ 
lican,  “whereupon  129  members  of  the  South  Carolina 
legislature  sneezed .”35  Then  they  condemned  the 
whole  South  Carolina  movement  under  his  leadership 
and  the  effort  to  lead  Georgia  in  its  wake.  Was  it  not 
absurd  that  Georgia  should  allow  Carolina  to  “inter¬ 
fere”  in  her  own  affairs?  These  “mighty  warriors  of 
Palmettodom”  were  but  trouble-makers,  and  the  “fuss 
in  Carolina”  should  be  ignored.  The  Georgia  Whigs 
understood  the  real  objectives  of  the  Carolina  move¬ 
ment  long  before  they  were  openly  proclaimed  by  the 
Calhounites.  South  Carolina,  it  was  declared,  did  not 
desire  any  compromise  with  the  North,  but,  under 
cover  of  the  southern  movement,  was  heading  directly 
for  secession.  The  majority  of  Georgia  Democrats 
were  not  secessionists  per  se,  said  the  Whigs,  and  did 
not  realize  that  this  was  the  real  purpose  of  their 
friends  across  the  river.  They  would  discover  this  in 
time,  however,  and  refuse  to  be  pulled  along  by  radical 
Palmettodom.  “We  wish  it  particularly  understood,” 
said  the  Republican ,  “that  Georgia  will  not  become  an 
appendage  of  this  political  comet — which  is  ever  ready 
to  dash  into  the  midst  of  our  glorious  constellation  of 
stars  and  destroy  the  harmony  of  their  orbits.  We  are 
not  yet  tired  of  the  Union,  and  we  mean  to  stand 
by  it.”36 

On  the  other  hand,  the  small  group  of  former 
Clay  Whigs  displayed  a  tendency  to  accept  the  south¬ 
ern-rights  views  held  by  a  growing  number  of  Demo¬ 
crats.  It  seems  curious  that  this  small  faction,  which 

36  Savannah  Republican,  November  8,  1848. 

38  Ibid.,  November  19,  1848,  January  1,  1849. 


194 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


had  in  1848  stood  for  conservatism,  and  opposed  the 
sectional  appeal  emphasized  by  the  southern  Whigs  in 
Taylor’s  campaign,  should  now  have  become  the  more 
radical  wing  of  the  party.  The  change  is  well  illus¬ 
trated  in  the  person  of  Berrien,  who  stood  by  Clay  and 
the  old  Whig  principles  in  1848,  but  who  in  the  winter 
following  desired  action  in  the  southern  caucus  and 
began  to  display  some  sympathy  for  the  southern 
movement.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  one 
potent  political  force  making  for  the  conservatism  of 
the  majority  of  the  Whigs ;  namely,  their  loyalty  to  and 
influence  in  the  Taylor  Administration,  did  not  operate 
at  all  upon  the  Clay  minority.  These  were  aggrieved 
independents,  who  expected  no  favors  from  Taylor 
and  who  did  not  trust  him  to  protect  the  South  against 
the  Proviso.  Under  such  circumstances  it  was  natural 
that  they  were  soon  to  break  with  the  majority.  In 
this  they  represented  the  second  secession  of  a  body  of 
Georgia  Whigs  from  the  main  party  on  the  ground 
that  it  could  not  be  trusted  to  protect  southern  interests 
— the  first  having  been  the  famous  secession  of  the 
“State  Rights  Whigs”  in  1840.  The  Clay  faction 
naturally  rallied  around  Berrien’s  address  as  the 
formal  expression  of  their  principles.  Unlike  the  Union 
Democrats,  however,  the  Berrien  Whigs  were  very 
few  in  number  and  were  not  concentrated  in  any  one 
particular  section.  Sectionalism  in  Georgia  affected 
the  Democracy  much  more  vitally  than  it  did  Whig- 
gery.  It  is  true  that  the  strongest  groups  of  the  minor¬ 
ity  Whigs  seemed  to  be  in  Savannah  and  Augusta,  and 
in  those  cities  resided  the  popular  leaders  of  the  fac¬ 
tion.  These  little  local  bodies,  however,  can  scarcely  be 
said  to  have  formed  sectional  groupings  within  the 
state. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  195 


Each  party  attempted  to  drive  a  wedge  between  the 
two  factions  in  the  other,  just  as  they  had  during  the 
preceding  year.  In  the  spring  of  1849  this  effort  was 
largely  concerned  with  demanding  of  the  enemy  press 
which  of  its  spokesmen  in  the  southern  caucus  it  up¬ 
held.  The  Savannah  Republican  insisted  that  it  had 
attempted  unsuccessfully  for  a  month  to  discover 
whether  its  local  opponent  preferred  the  address  of 
Calhoun  or  that  of  Cobb.  The  Georgian  thereupon 
made  the  retort  courteous  that  it  had  tried  unsuccess¬ 
fully  “ever  since  1848”  to  learn  the  Re  publican’ s  pref¬ 
erence  between  Stephens  and  Berrien.37  The  Whigs 
wished  to  know  why  Democrats  condemned  Stephens 
in  the  caucus,  but  not  Cobb;  while  the  Democrats  in¬ 
quired  why  Whigs  heaped  such  abuse  on  Calhoun,  but 
were  so  considerate  of  Berrien.38 

While  these  discussions  were  in  progress,  a  new 
and  startling  element  was  introduced  into  the  national 
situation  by  the  discovery  of  gold  in  California  and  the 
consequent  rush  of  population  thither.  During  the  win¬ 
ter  and  spring  developments  in  that  territory  attracted 
considerable  attention  in  Georgia.  Early  indications 
that  the  population  of  California  would  be  of  a  char¬ 
acter  opposed  to  slavery  were  rather  welcomed  by  the 
Georgia  Whigs,  but  regretted  by  the  Democrats.  The 
former  rejoiced  at  the  prospect  that  California  would 
soon  become  a  state  with  a  constitution  excluding  slav¬ 
ery,  for  the  state-rights  Democrats  certainly  could 
not  oppose  the  right  of  a  state  to  decide  this  question 
for  itself.  Thus  statehood  in  California  would  accom¬ 
plish  just  what  the  Whig  leaders  had  long  desired,  i.e., 
the  evasion  of  the  difficult  constitutional  issue  concern- 

37  Savannah  Georgian,  April  12,  1849. 

38  Augusta  Chronicle,  April  11,  1849. 


196 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


ing  the  territories.39  For  such  sentiments,  however, 
the  Democrats  rebuked  them,  on  the  ground  that  a  free 
constitution  in  California  would  be  but  the  Proviso  in 
legal  disguise.40 

Thus  appeared  the  first  sign  that  the  advocates  of 
state-rights  would  abandon  a  strict  adherence  to  their 
cardinal  doctrine  in  the  case  of  California,  denying 
it  the  usual  prerogative  of  a  state  to  determine  for  or 
against  slavery.  This  was  to  be  done  on  the  ground 
that  the  unusual  character  of  its  population  of  “forty- 
niners”  prevented  it  from  being  a  truly  American  state. 
A  somewhat  similar  reason  had  already  been  urged 
for  abandoning  the  “popular  sovereignty”  compromise 
plan  for  New  Mexico,  on  the  ground  that  here  the 
population  was  too  largely  Mexican  to  become  truly 
American.41 

Meanwhile,  perhaps  something  could  be  done  by 
southern-rights  men  to  prevent  California  from  being 
over-run  by  free-state  adventurers.  One  way  to  avert 
this  fate  was  to  encourage  the  settlement  of  southern 
men  with  their  slaves  in  the  territory.  Here,  of  course, 
all  the  forces  of  nature  were  against  the  South,  for 
there  was  no  demand  for  slaves  in  the  new  country. 
Would  Georgians  sacrifice  their  economic  and  other 
interests  for  the  sake  of  political  expediency  in  this 
matter?  At  least  one  optimist,  Robert  R.  Howard, 
thought  they  would.  Early  in  April  he  issued  a  call 
for  five  hundred  Georgians  to  accompany  him  to  the 
new  Eldorado.  The  object  of  the  expedition  was,  in 
addition  to  finding  gold,  “to  enjoy  their  rights  in  com- 

39  Augusta  Chronicle,  January  14,  1849. 

40  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  January  16,  1849. 

41  Holsey  to  Cobb,  February  13,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  pp.  149,  150. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  197 


mon  with  other  citizens  in  a  territory.”42  For  this 
purpose,  presumably,  each  of  the  five  hundred  was  to 
come  armed  and  to  bring  with  him  from  one  to  four 
male  slaves.  The  company,  which  was  to  have  a  quasi¬ 
military  organization,  would  assemble  at  Milledgeville 
on  May  1,  1849. 

The  more  extreme  Democratic  papers  applauded 
this  call  enthusiastically.  The  conservative  ones  ad¬ 
vised  against  the  movement,  however,  on  the  ground 
that  Georgia  needed  her  men  at  home,  though  they 
admired  “the  Southern  spirit  of  the  call.”43  The  mat¬ 
ter  attracted  some  attention  in  the  North  among  the 
antislavery  papers,  where  it  was  spoken  of  as  an 
“armed  immigration  to  California”  which  “looks 
rather  vapory.”44  The  Columbus  Times  replied  that 
it  hoped  it  would  actually  take  place  and  that  thousands 
of  others  from  all  over  the  South  would  go  with  them.45 
The  expedition  does  not  seem,  however,  finally  to  have 
materialized.  A  few  Georgians  went  to  California  as 
individuals,  with  their  slaves,  and  in  some  cases  re¬ 
turned  with  them  years  later.46 

The  first  test  of  party  policy  and  the  party  factions 
in  1849  came  with  the  meeting  of  the  Whig  and  Demo¬ 
cratic  state  conventions  early  in  July.  Trouble  was 
threatening  in  the  Democratic  convention  between  the 
Cobb  and  Calhoun  factions,  the  latter  being  suspected 
of  a  desire  to  have  the  party  officially  approve  the 
“Southern  Address”  and  the  southern  movement.  It 
was  essential  to  preserve  party  unity,  however,  if  the 

“Columbus  Times,  April  3,  1849. 

43  Savannah  Georgian,  April  13,  1849. 

44  New  York  Tribune,  May  1,  1849. 

45  May  8,  1849.  This  attitude  suggests  that  which  was  later  taken  with 
regard  to  Kansas. 

46  C.  A.  Dunway,  “Slavery  in  California  After  1848,”  American  His¬ 
torical  Association,  Annual  Report,  1905,  II.  245. 


198 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


state  election  for  governor  and  the  legislature  was  to 
be  won  in  the  coming  fall.  Governor  Towns  there¬ 
fore  exerted  himself  to  prevent  too  open  an  attack  upon 
Cobb.47  When  the  state  Democratic  meeting  was  held 
at  Milledgeville,  July  11,  1849,  the  Calhounites  did 
attempt  to  adopt  the  “Southern  Address,”  but  Cobb 
threatened  them  not  only  with  a  bolt  of  his  Cherokee 
delegates  but  also  with  the  “uncompromising  hostility” 
of  Polk’s  administration.48  The  delegates  thereupon 
compromised  for  the  sake  of  harmony,  adopting  the 
relatively  innocuous  resolutions  of  Virginia  in  the 
place  of  the  “Southern  Address,”  and  nominating 
Towns  for  governor.49 

The  convention  had  no  sooner  adjourned  than  a 
chorus  of  derision  arose  in  the  Whig  press.  The  Cal¬ 
houn  Democrats,  it  was  pointed  out,  had  condemned 
as  traitors  to  the  South  all  who  would  not  approve 
Calhoun’s  pronunicamento,  yet  now  they  had  not  so 
much  as  mentioned  that  famous  paper  in  their  official 
resolutions.  Evidently,  remarked  the  wily  Whigs,  the 
Cobb  faction  controlled  the  Democracy,  and  as  Cobb 
represented  the  “submissionist”  wing,  the  people  of 
Georgia  might  know  what  to  expect  from  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party  as  the  protector  of  southern  rights-50 
In  this  way  the  Whigs  attempted  to  ridicule  the 
Democratic  claim  to  sectional  preference ;  that  is,  they 

47  G.  W.  Towns  to  J.  H.  Lumpkin,  quoted  in  Lumpkin  to  Cobb,  June 
13,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  163. 

48  Milledgeville  Southern  Recorder,  in  the  Chronicle,  August  2,  1849. 

49  The  only  expression  of  “rising  feeling”  in  the  Democratic  conven¬ 
tion  was  the  adoption  of  a  resolution  against  “squatter  sovereignty”  in 
the  territories,  a  doctrine  which  the  party  had  approved  in  1847  and  1848. 
This  was  probably  motivated  by  a  fear  that  the  doctrine  would  play  into 
the  hands  of  the  Free  Soldiers.  See  the  Georgian,  July  13,  November 
13,  1849;  H.  V.  Johnson  to  Calhoun,  July  20,  1849,  Calhoun  Corres¬ 
pondence  (as  cited  above,  p.  147,  n.  62),  p.  1197. 

50  Columbus  Enquirer,  in  the  Chronicle,  August  11,  1849. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  199 


continued  to  play  the  game  that  both  parties  maintained 
throughout  the  entire  crisis  of  1850 — the  game  of 
party  advantage  and  expediency.  The  Democrats  re¬ 
plied  as  best  they  could,  but  many  of  the  Calhounites 
felt  the  force  of  Whig  jibes  and  wished  themselves 
well  rid  of  the  incubus  of  Cobb  conservatism.51 

The  Whig  state  convention  met  at  Milledgeville  on 
June  25.  It  was,  the  Whigs  claimed,  “the  largest  and 
most  harmonious  ever  held  in  Georgia.”  The  resolu¬ 
tions  adopted  reasserted  opposition  to  the  Proviso  as 
violating  all  the  compromises,  asserted  the  necessity 
for  final  opposition  in  case  it  should  pass,  but 
expressed  continued  confidence  in  Taylor’s  adminis¬ 
tration.  The  platform  was,  generally  speaking,  a 
recapitulation  of  the  resolutions  adopted  by  the  Whig 
majority  in  the  last  state  senate,  that  of  1847-1848. 
Judge  Edward  Y.  Hill  was  nominated  for  the  gover¬ 
norship  “with  unaminity.”52 

The  Whig  platform  was  criticized  by  the  Demo¬ 
crats  on  much  the  same  ground  that  they  themselves 
had  been  attacked.  The  Whig  resolutions,  said  the 
followers  of  Towns,  were  strong  enough  when  passed 
by  the  state  senate  in  December  of  1847,  but  were  too 
weak  for  1849.  They  spoke  of  resistance,  but  called 
for  no  definite  action.  The  Whigs  made  much  of 
Democratic  divisions,  continued  the  Democrats,  but  it 
was  obvious  that  Whig  leaders  like  Stephens  and  Ber¬ 
rien  had  been  forced  to  remain  away  from  the  party’s 
state  convention  in  an  effort  to  hide  their  differences. 
The  Whigs  would,  no  doubt,  have  liked  to  keep  silence 
on  the  slavery  issue  altogether,  but  “agitation  on  the 

61  Columbus  Muscogee  Democrat,  in  the  Chronicle,  July  21,  1849. 

“Savannah  Republican,  June  28,  30;  Augusta  Chronicle,  June  28; 
Columbus  Enquirer,  July  3,  1849. 


200 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Proviso  has  reached  such  an  extent”  that  “no  conven¬ 
tion  dares  adjourn  at  the  present  time  maintaining 
silence  upon  it.”53 

Throughout  the  campaign,  each  party  strove — as 
it  had  in  1848 — first,  to  show  itself  “sound”  and  the 
enemy  “unsound”  on  southern-rights,  and,  second,  to 
prevent  the  development  of  faction  in  its  own  ranks 
and  to  encourage  it  in  those  of  the  other.  The  Whig 
attack  on  the  Democratic  convention  had  been  directed 
towards  all  these  ends  and  had  been  relatively  effec¬ 
tive.  It  was  more  than  neutralized,  however,  by 
pointed  Democratic  attacks  upon  Taylor’s  “sound¬ 
ness,”54 — now  a  matter  of  secret  suspicion  even  among 
the  Whig  leaders — by  renewed  denunciations  of  Fill¬ 
more,  and  by  a  systematic  effort  to  divide  the  Whig 
factions. 

This  last  move  was  well  planned  and  effective.  On 
August  18  a  “committee  of  citizens”  addressed  to  the 
gubernatorial  candidates  the  following  questions,  to 
which  they  requested  the  favor  of  public  replies :  ( 1 ) 
“Is  the  Wilmot  Proviso  constitutional?”  (2)  “Did 
you  approve  the  Clayton  Compromise?”  (3)  “What 
should  the  South  do  if  the  Wilmot  Proviso  passes?” 
Towns  replied  promptly  to  these  queries.  He  an¬ 
swered  the  first  in  the  negative,  the  second  in  the 
affirmative,  and  for  the  third  repeated  his  statement 
that  there  should  be  “resistance  at  every  hazard.” 
Hill  failed  to  reply,  which  brought  upon  him  a  torrent 
of  Democratic  denunciation.  The  Marietta  Helicon 
claimed  in  his  defense  that  the  questions  never  reached 
him,  but  this  the  Democrats  denied. 

53  Savannah  Georgian,  June  30,  July  13,  1849. 

54  Columbus  Times,  May  8,  June  5,  1849. 

55  Federal  Union,  September  25,  1849. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  201 


The  object  of  the  questions  was  obviously  to  em¬ 
phasize  old  Whig  differences  on  the  Clayton  Compro¬ 
mise  and  to  accentuate  new  ones  then  developing  with 
reference  to  the  constitutionality  of  the  Proviso  and 
the  best  mode  of  resistance  thereto.  The  bulk  of  the 
Whig  party  probably  agreed  with  the  Savannah  Re¬ 
publican  that  the  Proviso  was  unconstitutional,56  inas¬ 
much  as  they  agreed  with  Calhoun  and  Berrien  that 
the  constitution  “followed  the  flag”  into  the  territories 
and  prevented  congressional  interference  with  slavery 
therein.  The  tendency  of  the  Augusta  Chronicle  to 
support  Stephens’  denial  of  this  thesis,  in  connection 
with  the  Clayton  Compromise,  had  already  indicated 
the  presence  of  a  conservative  group  of  Whigs  who 
differed  from  the  others  in  constitutional  theory.  Lee, 
of  the  Chronicle,  insisted  that  Calhoun  had  come  to  ac¬ 
cept  “an  erroneous  theory  of  the  National  Govern¬ 
ment.”  According  to  Lee,  Calhoun  claimed  that  sov¬ 
ereignty  was  indivisible  and  resided  in  the  state  gov¬ 
ernment.  Lee,  however,  held  to  the  good  old  Madison¬ 
ian  view,  that  sovereignty  was  divisible  and  that  a  large 
share  of  it  had  been  allotted  to  the  Federal  govern¬ 
ment.57  In  the  course  of  his  remarks  to  this  effect,  he 
came  to  the  consideration  not  only  of  the  constitution¬ 
ality  of  the  Proviso,  but  of  “the  right  of  secession”  now 
being  uncritically  assumed  by  some  of  the  Democratic 
editors.  He  was  thus  led  to  a  denial  of  any  legal  right 
of  secession,  a  denial  so  strong  as  to  be  remarkable  in 
a  journal  having  one  of  the  largest  circulations  in 
the  lower  South  in  this  period.  “A  city  might  just  as 

68  The  Augusta  Republic  “informed”  the  Georgia  people  in  June 
that  the  Whigs  were  opposed  to  the  Proviso,  and  thereby  insulted  the 
rest  of  the  party,  which  resented  the  implication  that  there  ever  had 
been  any  doubt  about  it ;  Savannah  Republican,  July  2,  1849. 

57  Augusta  Chronicle,  July  20,  1849. 


202 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


well  proclaim  its  independence  of  state  authority,  as  a 
state  of  the  Union,”  he  declared.  “The  strength  of 
our  national  government  has  never  been  fully  tested, 
but  anyone  who  supposes  it  will  break  easily  knows 
not  of  the  character  of  the  American  people.”58 

This  view  implied,  of  course,  that  if  there  were  any 
“right”  of  secession  it  must  be  simply  the  moral  “right 
of  revolution.”  But  here  again  the  editor  was  too  con¬ 
servative  to  grant  much.  He  was  disinclined  to  recog¬ 
nize  even  such  a  moral  privilege  and  became  involved 
in  a  second  controversy  with  the  Constitutionalist 
over  the  “right  of  revolution.”  The  latter,  with  other 
Democratic  journals,  gloried  in  this  right  as  a  Jeffer¬ 
sonian  tradition  and  on  that  ground  had  welcomed  the 
revolutionary  movements  of  1848  in  Europe.  The 
Chronicle  looked  askance  upon  this  view  and  assured 
its  prosperous  readers  that  “the  right  of  revolution 
must  be  qualified  to  avoid  anarchy.”  The  Democratic 
journals,  led  by  the  Washington  Union,  were  “hot¬ 
beds  of  Red  Republicanism”  and  of  “rank  Dorism.” 
Conservatives  were  reminded  that  “nearly  100,000 
European  democratic  voters  land  every  year,  who  are 
used  to  revolution !”  Those  who  listened  to  Democratic 
demagogues  should  ask  themselves  whether  they  were 
really  yet  ready  “to  abandon  the  system  of  Washing¬ 
ton,  Jefferson  and  Madison,  for  the  more  democratic 
one  of  Rollin,  Louis  Blanc  and  Lamartine.”59 

Such  views,  said  the  Constitutionalist,  displayed 
the  characteristic  Whig  tendency  to  deny  the  people 

68  Ibid.  This,  of  course,  was  the  same  view  which  such  a  Union  leader 
as  Richard  Arnold  had  urged  in  1833.  For  the  modern  revival  of  the 
theory  of  divisible  sovereignty,  which  emphasizes  division  in  terms  of 
“functions”  rather  than  in  terms  of  “territorial  contiguity,”  see,  e.g., 
H.  J.  Laski,  Authority  in  the  Modern  State,  pp.  74,  75;  also  the  same 
author’s  The  Problem  of  Sovereignty,  p.  271. 

“  Augusta  Chronicle,  July  23,  1849. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  203 


the  right  to  choose  their  own  form  of  government. 
They  amounted  to  a  denial  of  the  principles  of  Jeffer¬ 
son’s  immortal  Declaration.  Lee,  entirely  unabashed 
by  this  thunder,  replied  that  those  Jeffersonian  prin¬ 
ciples  would  justify  the  very  thing  most  dangerous  to 
southern  institutions ;  namely,  servile  insurrection. 
They  were  therefore  incendiary  conceptions,  which 
should  be  suppressed  in  southern  society.60 

This  was  certainly  “preaching  federalism  of  the 
purest  water,”  and  the  opportunity  it  afforded  Demo¬ 
cratic  editors  for  criticism  was  relished  by  those 
gentlemen.  They  had  now  succeeded  in  enticing  con¬ 
servative  Whigs  into  an  attack  on  the  abstract  prin¬ 
ciples  most  dear  to  the  heart  of  the  Georgia  people — 
the  traditions  of  state  sovereignty  and  democracy. 
A  very  torrent  of  denunciation  descended  upon  the 
Chronicle  from  the  Democratic  papers  of  Augusta, 
Milledgeville,  Columbia,  and  Charleston.  These  could 
now  place  the  conservative  Whigs  in  an  unpopular 
position  concerning  abstract  constitutional  issues,  and 
they  intended  to  exploit  this  advantage  to  the  utmost. 
This  was  especially  true  of  the  Chronicle’s  denial  of 
the  “right  of  secession”  and  its  disapproval  of  the 
“right  of  revolution.”  The  most  effective  Democratic 
use  of  the  first  of  these  questions  was  to  be  made  in 
the  next  state  campaign,  that  of  1851,  but  the  begin¬ 
nings  of  the  issue  are  to  be  observed  in  1849. 

The  most  fortunate  result  of  the  constitutional 
controversy,  from  the  Democratic  point  of  view,  was 
the  bitter  attack  made  by  the  radical  Whigs  upon  their 
conservative  brethren.  Smythe,  of  the  Republic,  who 
represented  what  little  remained  of  the  old  state-rights 
traditions  of  the  original  Whig  party  of  1833,  was  par- 


Ibid.,  August  30,  1849. 


204 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


ticularly  incensed  at  the  utter  repudiation  of  these  tra¬ 
ditions  by  the  neighboring  party  journal.  “Where,” 
he  demanded,  “is  the  great  States  Rights  Party  of 
Georgia?  With  a  change  of  names  they  have  changed 
their  principles?  .  .  .  The  doctrines  of  the  Chron¬ 
icle  on  a  Consolidated  Union  would  put  us  at  the 
mercy  of  the  anti-slavery  Northern  majority.”61  Lee’s 
“open  Consolidationism”  was  indeed  too  much  for  the 
rank  and  file  of  the  Whig  party.62  Lee’s  publishers 
continued  to  back  him,  however,  and  the  party  leaders 
could  not  afford  to  offend  the  powerful  Chronicle  dur¬ 
ing  a  critical  campaign.  It  is  small  wonder  that  Judge 
Hill,  facing  the  running  constitutional  controversy  be¬ 
tween  the  two  factions  of  his  party  in  Augusta,  hesi¬ 
tated  to  answer  the  leading  questions  sent  to  him  by 
the  Democrats. 

The  latter  were  having  their  own  troubles,  mean¬ 
while,  in  a  desperate  attempt  to  keep  the  Cobb  and 
Calhoun  factions  together  until  after  the  election. 
The  Federal  Union  persisted  in  criticisms  of  the  “non¬ 
signers”  of  the  Southern  Address,  while  the  Athens 
Banner  continued  its  condemnation  of  Calhoun  and  all 
his  works.  Flournoy,  of  the  Federal  Union,  warned 
Holsey  that  the  Carolinian  had  good  friends  in  Geor¬ 
gia  and  that  the  Athens  editor  must  remember  that 
“his  clique  is  not  the  whole  party.”63  If  that  clique 
continued  to  stir  up  trouble  in  the  Democracy,  the 
organ  at  the  capital  threatened  to  retaliate  by  refusing 
“to  support  any  anti-Calhoun  men  for  place.”  In 

61  Augusta  Republic,  July  21,  in  the  Savannah  Georgian,  July  31,  1849. 

62  Alexander  Stephens  made  an  unsuccessful  attempt  to  remove  Lee 
tactfully  to  Washington,  by  securing  him  a  federal  appointment.  See 
Stephens  to  G.  W.  Crawford,  March  2,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  155. 

63  Federal  Union,  August  28,  1849. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  205 


Athens  some  subscribers  wrote  the  Banner  to  discon¬ 
tinue  their  subscriptions  because  of  its  anti-Calhoun 
policy.64  The  Banner  replied  that  it  would  retaliate 
upon  the  “Calhoun  Journals,”  which  would  see  that  it 
could  “give  as  good  as  they  send.  These  Calhoun  men 
are  not  the  Southern  men  par  excellence .”  Holsey 
dismissed  Flournoy,  who  had  particularly  irritated 
him,  as  “a  contemptable  trickster — a  disgrace  to  the 
Democratic  party.”65  It  was  becoming  increasingly 
apparent  that  the  factions  in  each  party  could  not  long 
maintain  even  the  pretense  of  harmony  or  the  cooper¬ 
ation  that  went  with  it.  Party  loyalty  would  soon 
break  under  the  increasing  strain  of  the  sectional 
issue.  It  had  cracked  in  many  places  before  the 
campaign  ended,  but  managed  to  hold  together  until 
the  election  was  past. 

The  usual  local  issues  were  injected  into  the  state 
campaign,  although  they  were  obviously  overshad¬ 
owed  by  the  one  great  problem.  The  Whigs  dis¬ 
covered  that  Towns  had  been  extravagant  in  admin¬ 
istering  the  state  penitentiary.  He  had  pardoned  a 
dangerous  criminal !  The  Democrats  found  that  Hill, 
like  Berrien,  had  been  too  prominently  connected  with 
railroad  interests  and  “special  privilege.”  Both  par¬ 
ties,  after  assuring  their  supporters  of  their  earnest 
efforts  to  keep  such  matters  below  the  surface,  were 
forced  by  conscience  to  point  to  the  shocking  personal 
habits  of  the  opposing  candidate.  In  their  respective 
efforts,  for  instance,  to  prove  that  the  opposition 
leader  was  more  given  to  drink  than  was  their  own 
hero,  the  capacities  of  each  were  portrayed  in  an  inter¬ 
esting  and  impressive  manner. 

64  Athens  Banner,  in  the  Savannah  Republican,  August  23,  1849. 

66  Banner,  in  the  Chronicle,  September  25,  1849. 


206 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Calhoun  and  the  Carolina  leaders  observed  with 
rising  hopes  the  trend  of  events  in  Georgia  and  the 
Gulf  states  through  the  fall  of  1849.  While  the  Jack- 
son  convention  in  Mississippi  would  be  the  most 
important  single  event  in  the  southern  movement,  the 
outcome  of  the  campaign  in  Georgia  was  also  of  vital 
interest.  The  hope  of  South  Carolina  was  pinned  upon 
the  southern-rights  Democrats  of  her  sister  state, 
whose  leaders  and  journals  gave  the  impression  that 
they  would  cooperate  in  a  “real  Southern  Movement” 
in  1850.  It  was  essential  to  this  end  that  the  majority 
of  the  Georgia  legislature  and  the  governor  be  south¬ 
ern-rights  men.  Calhoun  maintained  his  personal 
touch  with  a  half  dozen  or  more  of  his  friends  in 
Georgia,  his  most  systematic  and  valuable  correspond¬ 
ents  being,  as  before,  Wilson  Lumpkin  and  Senator 
Johnson.  The  latter  reported  in  the  summer  that  there 
was  “great  excitement  in  the  party  in  this  state  upon 
the  slavery  question,”  but  that,  “notwithstanding  dem¬ 
onstrations,  I  seriously  feel  that  the  people  of  the 
South  are  not  properly  awake  to  the  danger — not 
thoroughly  nerved  to  resistance.”  Yet  he  agreed  with 
Calhoun  that  “now  is  the  time  for  resistance.”  Lump¬ 
kin’s  estimate  of  Georgia  public  opinion  late  in  July, 
1849,  was  even  more  pessimistic  than  that  of  Johnson. 
He  wrote: 

I  have  to  a  great  extent  lost  confidence  in  the  virtue  and 
intelligence  of  our  Southern  people.  Upon  the  slavery  ques¬ 
tion  South  Carolina  is  the  only  state  in  the  Union  prepared  to 
do  her  full  duty.  .  .  .  With  a  single  exception  in  Geor¬ 

gia,66  the  Whig  Press  shrink  from  speaking  out  in  a  manly 
tone,  and  the  Democratic  press  is  not  entirely  free  from  former 
association  with  Van  Buren  and  Benton.  We  have  an  office¬ 
seeking  faction  in  Georgia  who  feel  but  little  of  the  true  spirit 
of  Southern  Patriotism.  .  .  .  Corruption  has  gotten  too 

M  The  Augusta  Republic. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  207 


deep  a  hold  upon  the  politicians  and  press  of  our  country  for 
us  to  indulge  the  hope  that  we  can  unite  the  South  in  self- 
defense,  even  upon  this  vital  slavery  question.  And  nothing 
short  of  the  union  .  .  .  can  save  us  from  degradation,  and 

from  horrors  which  the  strongest  language  can  but  faintly 
depict.  You  and  I  may  struggle  on  through  our  few  remaining 
days.  But  in  our  last  hour  I  fear  we  will  not  be  consoled  with 
the  prospects  which  await  posterity  in  this  section  of  our 
Union.  It  may  soon  be  recorded  that  “the  slave  states  were .”67 

This  letter  is  interesting  for  several  reasons.  It 
agreed  with  the  private  opinions  of  most  of  the  ex¬ 
treme  Calhoun  men  in  Georgia  that  the  people  of  that 
state,  even  the  Democrats,  were  not  prepared  for 
extreme  measures.68  Second,  it  expressed  clearly  the 
despair  of  far-sighted  southern  nationalists  over  the 
blindness  of  their  people  to  the  dangers  lurking  in  old 
loyalties  to  party  and  to  Union.  Third,  it  illustrates 
the  private  and  sincere  expression  of  the  fear  of  social 
chaos  following  abolition.  Finally,  it  offered  a  proph¬ 
etic  picture  of  the  pathetic  circumstances  attending 
Calhoun’s  death  within  the  next  year,  in  the  midst  of 
a  crisis  in  which  he  could  see  but  little  hope  for  his 
beloved  Southland. 

As  the  two  parties  neared  the  October  elections, 
both  made  final  appeals  upon  the  slavery  issue.  The 
majority  Democrats,  with  lessening  regard  for  Chero¬ 
kee  sensibilities,  proclaimed  to  the  people  that  the 
great  question  of  the  election  was  of  submission  or 
resistance  to  the  antislavery  movement,  and  that  the 
Democracy  stood  for  resistance  “to  the  last  extrem¬ 
ity.”  Town’s  letters  and  speeches  proved  him  the 
“resistance  candidate.”  Hill’s  silence  and  evasiveness 

67  Wilson  Lumpkin  to  Calhoun,  August  27,  1849,  the  Calhoun  Papers. 
See  also  R.  I.  Moon  to  Calhoun,  August  26,  1849,  Calhoun  Papers. 

68  The  significance  of  this  private  pessimism  of  the  Georgia  Cal- 
hounites,  and  the  contrast  it  offers  to  the  optimism  of  their  public  proc¬ 
lamations,  will  be  commented  upon  in  the  next  chapter. 


208 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


proved  him  the  “Submissionist  candidate.”69  The 
Whigs,  for  their  part,  claimed  just  as  vehemently  to 
be  the  only  genuine  southern  party. 

Special  efforts  were  made  by  the  party  machines 
to  prevent  voting  for  irregular  candidates  for  the  leg¬ 
islature  and  to  bring  out  a  full  vote.  The  Democratic 
executive  committee,  a  body  appointed  by  the  July 
convention,  sent  out  secret  circulars  at  the  last  moment 
to  the  watchers  at  the  county  polls,  with  instructions 
for  getting  out  every  possible  vote.70  In  the  last  six 
weeks  of  the  campaign,  the  Democratic  editors  ex¬ 
pressed  increasing  confidence  of  victory,  and  the 
Whigs  admitted  the  danger  of  defeat.71  The  growing 
suspicion  of  Taylor’s  attitude  toward  the  Proviso;  the 
definite  southern-rights  stand  taken  by  Towns,  in  con¬ 
trast  with  Hill’s  evasiveness;  and  the  extreme  conser¬ 
vatism  of  the  Chronicle  wing  of  the  Whig  party — all 
tended  to  strengthen  the  Democratic  claim  to  sectional 
preference.  Signs  of  wavering  in  party  loyalty 
appeared  here  and  there,  even  among  the  Taylor 
Whigs.72 

The  election  was  held  on  October  1.  In  the  returns 
from  the  first  forty  counties  reported,  Towns  showed 
a  gain  of  about  one  thousand  votes  over  his  own  record 
for  1847.  The  final  results  gave  him  the  election  with 
a  majority  of  3192,  the  vote  standing:  Towns,  46,514; 
Hill,  43,322.  The  vote  in  1847  had  been  Towns, 
43.220;  Clinch,  41,931.  This  meant  that  the  Whig 

08  Savannah  Georgian,  September  13,  1849 ;  Federal  Union,  Septem¬ 
ber  11,  18,  1849. 

50  Augusta  Chronicle,  September  25,  1849. 

71  Macon  Telegraph,  August  14;  the  Macon  Journal,  August  14;  in 
the  Chronicle,  August  25,  1849. 

"Washington  (Georgia)  Gazette,  in  the  Chronicle,  July  21,  1849;  T. 
W.  Thomas  to  Cobb,  August  19,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Cor¬ 
respondence,  p.  174. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  209 


vote  of  1849  was  greater  than  that  of  1847  by  1391, 
while  the  Democratic  was  greater  by  3294.73  In 
other  words,  there  had  been  a  slight  but  definite  rela¬ 
tive  gain  of  about  nineteen  hundred  votes  in  the 
Democratic  poll  for  governor  in  1849,  as  compared 
with  that  of  1847.  In  like  manner,  it  became  apparent 
that  there  had  been  a  small  but  definite  Democratic 
gain  in  the  legislature — sufficient  to  change  the  control 
of  that  body.  The  Democrats  secured  twenty-six  seats 
in  the  Senate,  the  Whigs  twenty-two,  while  in  the 
House  the  former  won  sixty-seven  seats,  and  the  latter 
sixty-three.  The  successful  Democratic  candidates 
represented  all  three  factions  in  their  party,  and  their 
small  gains  were  not  peculiar  to  any  section  of  the 
state.74 

Little  was  said  by  the  Whig  press  in  explanation  of 
the  October  defeat.  The  Democratic  organs  in  Cen¬ 
tral  and  Lower  Georgia  immediately  hailed  it  as  a  vic¬ 
tory  for  southern-rights  over  Whig  “submissionism” 
and  pointed  to  concomitant  Democratic  victories  in 
most  of  the  other  southern  states  as  indications  of  a 
similar  victory  throughout  the  South.75  The  most 
elaborate  expression  of  this  view  was  that  given  by 
the  southern-rights  Whigs,  who  had  steadily  warned 
their  conservative  brethren  of  impending  defeat,  and 
who  now  felt  no  hesitancy  in  coming  forward  to  the 
old  tune,  “I  told  you  so!”  The  election  was  lost  by 

73  Georgian,  October  4;  Chronicle,  November  21;  Philadelphia  North 
American,  November  23,  1849. 

74  Savannah  Republican,  October  10,  1849 ;  Journals  of  the  Georgia 
House  and  Journals  of  the  Senate,  for  1849-’50,  pp.  1,  2;  Members  of 
the  Legislature,  (printed  list  showing  party  affiliations,  for  the  Legis¬ 
lature  of  1850,  in  possession  of  U.  B.  Phillips)  ;  Iverson  to  Cobb,  Octo¬ 
ber  6;  J.  H.  Lumpkin  to  Cobb,  October  19,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  175,  176. 

75  Savannah  Georgian,  October  4,  1849;  Times,  October  9;  Federal 
Union,  October  9,  October  16,  1849. 


210 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  Whigs,  said  Smythe,  primarily  because  they  had 
continued  to  support  Taylor,  while  the  southern  people 
were  losing  confidence  in  him.76 

This  interpretation  of  the  election  implied  a  grow¬ 
ing  confidence  in  the  Democracy  as  the  southern-rights 
party.  Extreme  Calhoun  Democrats,  however,  in  their 
exasperation  at  the  moderation  displayed  during  the 
compaign  towards  the  Union  Democrats,  sometimes 
denied  this,  and  offered  what  was  probably  the  most 
critical  analysis  of  the  campaign.  Both  parties,  they 
held,  failed  to  take  a  real  stand  on  slavery  for  fear  of 
factional  splits,  hence  there  had  been  popular  indiffer¬ 
ence  to  the  election,  and  its  results  could  not  be  of  great 
significance.77 

The  evidence  in  the  case  of  Georgia  does  indicate 
only  an  average  interest  in  the  election,  the  slight 
increase  in  the  votes  of  both  parties  over  1847  being 
only  such  as  could  have  been  produced  by  the  normal 
increase  in  population.  There  is  no  evidence,  more¬ 
over,  of  any  intense  popular  agitation  outside  the 
parties,  save  for  the  statements  of  Calhounites,  who 
were  themselves  undoubtedly  excited.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  small  but  definite  relative  gain  in  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  vote  can  only  be  ascribed  to  some  growth  of 
sectional  feeling,  since  the  slavery  issue  was  the  only 
important  one  raised  during  the  campaign.  The  Demo¬ 
crats  undoubtedly  were  most  successful  in  urging  the 
sectional  appeal.  Some  potential  Whig  votes  were 
probably  given  to  Towns  by  the  Clay  Whigs,  though 
the  exact  number,  which  must  have  been  small,  cannot 
be  determined.  The  latter  were,  in  all  probability, 

79 Republic ,  in  the  Federal  Union,  October  16,  1849. 

77  J.  R.  Mathews  to  Calhoun,  October  7,  1849,  Calhoun  Papers. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  211 


responsible  for  their  party’s  defeat.  If  so,  the  Whig- 
organization  was  the  first  to  suffer  in  Georgia  because 
of  the  sectional  struggle.  The  Democrats,  however, 
were  to  have  their  turn  within  a  year. 

The  effect  of  the  election  victory  upon  the  majority 
of  the  Democrats,  so  far  as  can  be  judged  from  the 
press,  was  to  increase  their  emphasis  upon  southern- 
rights  and  to  make  for  greater  sympathy  for  the 
extreme  demand  of  southern  political  unity.  In  a 
word,  the  Democratic  editors,  having  espoused  a  gen¬ 
eral  sectional  appeal  as  a  result  of  the  election  of  1848, 
were  now  ready  to  go  further  and  definitely  adopt  the 
southern  movement  as  a  result  of  the  election  of  1849. 
Several  forces  were  responsible  for  this  change  in  atti¬ 
tude.  In  the  first  place,  the  events  of  the  past  year 
had  doubtless  persuaded  some  that  sectional  unity  was 
now  essential,  and  editors  who  were  watching  the 
northern  press  were  apt  to  be  peculiarly  susceptible  to 
such  persuasion.  In  the  second  place,  those  Democrats 
who,  as  Calhounites,  had  held  their  peace  during  the 
campaign  for  the  sake  of  party  harmony,  were  less 
likely  to  keep  silent  now  that  a  Democratic  state  ad¬ 
ministration  was  safely  in  office.  Finally,  it  was  prob¬ 
able  that  the  southern  movement,  ostensibly  a  non¬ 
partisan  one,  might  be  turned  to  partisan  advantage  in 
Georgia.  Some  gain  had  apparently  accrued  to  the 
party  as  a  result  of  urging  the  sectional  appeal  in  the 
recent  election.  More  popular  excitement  would  un¬ 
doubtedly  develop  as  a  result  of  the  coming  struggles 
in  the  legislature  and  in  Congress.  If  the  Whigs 
maintained  their  conservatism,  the  Democrats  could 
appeal  to  the  people  for  support  as  the  only  true 
southern  party.  In  fact  the  elections  were  no  sooner 


212 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


over  than  the  Democrats  did  appeal  to  all  Whigs  to 
rally  with  them  for  southern  unity.78 

The  course  of  events  in  sister  states  through  the 
fall  gave  added  impetus  to  the  support  of  the  southern 
movement  in  Georgia.  Since  the  spring  agitation  in 
South  Carolina,  which  had  led  to  the  appointment  of 
a  Central  Committee  of  Vigilance  and  Safety,  there 
had  been  a  general  silence  in  that  state  upon  the  sec¬ 
tional  issue.  The  general  agreement  upon  national 
topics  there  made  further  agitation  unnecessary,  pend¬ 
ing  developments  in  the  other  states.79  Calhoun, 
however,  continuing  his  leadership  of  the  whole  south¬ 
ern  movement,  had  been  duly  informed  of  the  coming 
convention  in  Jackson,  Mississippi,  and  his  advice  was 
requested  as  to  the  course  to  be  followed  there.  He 
urged  again  his  belief,  expressed  in  private  corre¬ 
spondence  as  early  as  1847,  that  the  only  way  to  save 
the  Union  was  to  unite  the  South  by  means  of  a  south¬ 
ern  convention.  It  seemed  reasonable  to  suppose  that 
two  years  of  excitement  had  now  prepared  the  people 
to  respond  to  this  appeal.  Senator  Foote,  of  Missis¬ 
sippi,  was  assured  by  both  Whig  and  Democratic  lead¬ 
ers  in  his  state  that  the  October  convention  would  act 
upon  Calhoun’s  advice,  and  the  latter  was  notified  to 
this  effect.80 

The  prospects  for  the  southern  movement  outside 
of  South  Carolina  seemed  most  favorable,  then,  in 
Mississippi.  The  Jackson  Convention  met  just  at  the 
time  the  state  election  was  being  held  in  Georgia,  and 
the  Carolinians  had  two  interesting  events  to  follow 
at  the  same  time.  The  Mississippi  convention  was 

"Columbus  Times,  October  23,  1849. 

™  Hamer,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  pp.  45,  46. 

80  Foote  to  Calhoun,  September  25,  1849,  Calhoun  Correspondence. 
p.  1204. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  213 


representative  of  both  parties  and  all  sections  of  the 
state.  “Among  those  present”  was  General  Daniel 
Wallace,  envoy  extraordinary  from  South  Carolina. 
As  the  secret  emissary  of  Seabrook,  the  General  had 
to  exercise  great  caution  in  approaching  the  members, 
lest  he  arouse  the  latent  hostility  to  South  Carolina 
which  existed  in  Mississippi  and  other  southern  states 
as  well  as  in  Georgia.81  Wallace  did  succeed  in  hold¬ 
ing  private  conversations  with  leading  Mississippians 
of  both  parties,  who  convinced  him  that  their  state  was 
ready  to  cooperate  with  his  own,  and  these  impressions 
he  sent  back  in  detail  to  Seabrook.  He  had  also  to 
report,  however,  his  own  surprise  at  the  extent  of  anti- 
Carolina  feeling.82 

The  policy  of  keeping  Wallace  and  all  he  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  background  made  possible  the  harmonious 
procedure  of  the  Jackson  convention.  Resolutions 
were  adopted  which  even  the  Calhounites  considered 
“up  to  the  mark.”  These,  besides  making  the  usual 
demands  for  resistance  to  the  Proviso,  to  the  prohi¬ 
bition  of  the  domestic  slave  trade,  and  to  the  abolition 
of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  issued  the  long- 
sought  formal  call  for  a  southern  convention.  The 
slave-holding  states  were  urged  to  send  delegates  to  a 
meeting  to  be  held  at  Nashville  on  the  first  Monday  in 
June,  1850,  “with  a  view  and  the  hope  of  arresting 
the  course  of  aggression,”  and,  if  necessary,  “to  devise 
and  adopt  some  mode  of  resistance”  to  the  same.83 

81  It  is  doubtful,  however,  whether  the  anti-Carolina  feeling  was  as 
strong  in  Mississippi  or  Alabama  as  it  was  in  Georgia,  where  the 
geographical  contacts  had  led  to  trade  rivalries,  and  the  other  usual 
frictions  resulting  from  proximity,  which  did  not  obtain  in  the  Gulf 
states.  It  is  difficult  to  believe  that  a  Georgia  convention,  with  Whigs 
and  Union  Democrats  present,  would  ever  have  admitted  a  South  Caro¬ 
lina  representative  under  any  circumstances  in  1849  or  1850. 

“Wallace  to  Seabrook,  October  20,  1849,  Seabrook  MSS. 

83  Hearon,  Mississippi  and  the  Compromise  of  1850,  pp.  63-68 ;  Ames, 
State  Documents,  pp.  253-258. 


214 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


This  call  was  hailed  with  hope  in  South  Carolina,, 
which  had  so  long'  awaited  just  such  encouragement 
from  her  western  sisters.  How  would  the  others  re¬ 
ceive  it?  Calhoun  watched  this  question  closely  and 
urged  his  correspondents  throughout  the  South  to 
respond  to  the  Jackson  call.84  Meanwhile,  Carolina 
could  lead  in  this  response.  When  the  legislature  con¬ 
vened  late  in  November,  Governor  Seabrook  urged 
that  provision  be  made  for  representation  at  Nash¬ 
ville.  The  coming  convention,  he  declared,  was  in¬ 
tended  to  save  the  Union ;  but  if  this  proved  impossible, 
it  was  to  provide  for  the  independence  of  the  slave¬ 
holding  states.  With  this  contingency  in  view,  he 
urged  preparation  for  military  defense.  The  legisla¬ 
ture  largely  ignored  this  last  request,  but  it  did  name 
delegates-at-large  to  Nashville,  provided  for  the  local 
election  of  other  delegates,  and  authorized  the  governor 
to  call  it  in  special  session  in  case  Congress  passed  the 
Proviso  or  kindred  measures.85 

In  the  course  of  the  next  few  months,  provision 
for  representation  at  Nashville  was  also  made  in  Vir¬ 
ginia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  Florida,  Texas,  Arkan¬ 
sas,  and  Tennessee.  In  the  first  three  of  these  states, 
provision  was  also  made  for  the  calling,  under  certain 
circumstances,  of  special  state  conventions.86  The 
long  heralded  southern  movement  was  really  begin¬ 
ning  to  “move” ! 

The  proceedings  of  the  Jackson  convention  reached 
Georgia  at  the  same  time  that  the  state  election  results 
were  being  made  known.  Southern-rights  Democrats, 
flushed  with  a  victory  ascribed  to  their  own  principles. 

“There  was  a  series  of  letters  to  this  effect.  See  the  Calhoun  Cor¬ 
respondence,  pp.  762,  769,  773,  775,  778,  1195,  etc. 

85  Hamer,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  pp.  43-45. 

M  Ames,  “Calhoun  and  the  Secession  Movement  of  1850,’’  p.  121. 


THE  APPROACH  OF  THE  STORM,  1849  215 


naturally  welcomed  the  expression  of  similar  prin¬ 
ciples  in  Mississippi,  and  urged  that  the  coming  legis¬ 
lature  in  Georgia  accept  the  call  to  Nashville.  Said 
the  Federal  Union: 

The  position  of  the  South  has  been  weakened  by  a  lack  of 
harmony.  But  Mississippi  had  designated  the  path  which  will 
lead  to  union  in  counsel  and  harmony  in  action.  .  .  .  All 

who  love  the  South  better  than  themselves  are  beginning  to  see 
that,  if  her  rights  are  maintained,  she  has  none  to  look  to  but 
herself.  Before  the  Legislature  of  Georgia  adjourns  we  hope 
to  see  our  gallant  state  standing  among  her  sisters  of  the  South 
on  the  same  platform  now  occupied  by  Mississippi.  A  united 
front  at  this  time  will  probably  dispel  the  clouds  that  threaten, 
and  save  the  Union,  but  vaccilation  and  dissention  now  means 
further  Northern  aggression,  which  will  continue  until  the 
South  will  finally  be  forced  to  destroy  the  Union.  Now  is  the 
time  to  act— to  act  cooly — calmly — resolutely — firmly.87 

A  few  of  Calhoun’s  friends  in  the  state  wrote  him 
in  like  manner  that  it  was  time  to  plan  “seriously  and 
calmly”  for  a  southern  party  in  Georgia.88  J.  H. 
Howard,  one  of  the  Columbus  extremists,  wrote  that, 
had  he  been  elected  to  the  legislature,  he  would  have 
worked  for  resolutions  “pointing  to  some  definite 
action  and  sent  them  to  all  the  states.”  Would  Cal¬ 
houn  please  advise  “in  confidence”  as  to  the  right 
course  of  a  southern  member  of  Congress  at  the  com¬ 
ing  session,89  and  also  as  to  “what  preventive  rem¬ 
edy”  the  state’s  legislature  should  adopt  the  mean¬ 
while?90  Calhoun’s  guidance  was  thus  sought  by 
the  extremists  for  the  Georgia  legislature  of  1849- 
1850,  as  for  that  of  1847-1848;  yet,  even  in  the  latter 
body  the  origin  of  his  advice  had  to  be  kept  a  close 

87  Federal  Union,  November  20;  see  also  the  Columbus  Times,  Novem¬ 
ber  20;  the  Georgian,  November  18,  1849. 

88  J.  R.  Mathews  to  Calhoun,  October  7,  1849,  Calhoun  Papers. 

89  This  may  have  been  intended  for  Alfred  Iverson,  of  Columbus, 
Representative  from  the  Second  Georgia  District. 

90  Howard  to  Calhoun,  October  8,  1849,  Calhoun  Papers. 


216 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


secret.  It  seems  quite  possible,  considering  all  the  cir¬ 
cumstances,  that  suggestions  were  sent  by  the  Caro¬ 
linian  to  his  followers  at  Milledgeville  in  answer  to 
such  requests  (even  as  he  sent  suggestions  to  his 
Mississippi  supporters)  and  that  the  Georgia  extrem¬ 
ists  hoped  to  secure  action  based  upon  his  plan.  The 
Whigs,  to  be  sure,  could  be  expected  to  oppose  any 
such  action,  and  so  too  could  the  Union  Democrats, 
but  much  was  hoped  from  the  Democratic  majority. 
Something  could  certainly  be  accomplished  if  Con¬ 
gress  precipitated  the  renewed  and  more  bitter  sec¬ 
tional  struggle,  which  now  seemed  well  nigh  inevitable. 


CHAPTER  VI 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 

The  Georgia  Legislature  convened  in  the  little  town 
of  Milledgeville  on  November  5,  1849,  a  month  before 
the  Congress  met  in  Washington.  The  state  body 
awaited  no  cue  from  the  latter  as  to  the  course  it  should 
take  upon  the  slavery  question,  although  it  was  bound 
to  be  influenced  by  the  debates  at  Washington,  just  as 
Congress  in  turn  was  influenced  by  developments  in 
the  states.  There  were  twenty-six  Democrats  and 
twenty-two  Whigs  in  the  state  Senate,  while  in  the 
House  there  were  sixty-six  Democrats  and  sixty-three 
Whigs.  The  Democratic  lead  was  so  slight  that  had 
the  Whigs  held  together  on  any  vital  national  ques¬ 
tion  they  could  have  defeated  the  other  party  with  the 
assistance  of  the  Union  Democrats  from  Cherokee.  A 
small  number  of  the  latter  group,  who  split  from  the 
rest  of  their  party  on  such  issues,  can  be  identified  by 
their  votes  in  both  houses.1  As  the  Whig  members 
themselves  proved  to  be  about  evenly  divided  upon 
national  questions,  however,  no  such  defeat  of  the 
Democrats  was  possible. 

Having  convened  on  November  5,  the  Assembly 
met  on  the  next  day  to  receive  the  Governor’s  mes¬ 
sage.  The  greater  part  of  this  document  dealt  with 
the  usual  economic  and  social  topics  of  the  time,  and 
his  views  on  these  matters  revealed  the  moderate  char¬ 
acter  of  Democratic  principles  in  this  period.  There 

1  Georgia  House  Journal,  1849-1850,  p.  487,  ff. 


218 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


was  little  trace  of  the  economic  and  social  radicalism 
of  previous  decades.2 

With  regard  to  the  pressing  question  of  slavery, 
Towns  first  recommended  that  better  laws  be  passed 
to  protect  the  slaves  from  cruelty  or  misusage.  While 
this  house-cleaning  was  in  progress  at  home,  the  state 
should  take  a  strong  stand  against  the  antislavery 
movement.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Towns  was  a 
southern-rights  Democrat  and  that  he  had  been  elected 
the  preceding  October  after  openly  declaring  for  final 
resistance  to  further  northern  “aggressions.”  He 
claimed,  therefore,  that  he  had  a  mandate  from  the 
people  to  take  action  against  such  attacks,  and,  as  a 
southern-rights  man,  he  was  anxious  to  use  his  posi¬ 
tion  as  governor  to  further  the  southern  movement. 
His  message  proclaimed  that,  with  the  meeting  in  the 
immediate  future  of  the  new  Congress  and  the  devel¬ 
opment  of  the  statehood  movements  in  California  and 
New  Mexico,  the  sectional  crisis  was  at  hand.  Fur¬ 
ther  attempts  to  pass  the  Proviso,  in  open  or  disguised 
form,  were  to  be  anticipated,  and  “further  aggression 
was  not  to  be  endured.”  In  proof  that  he  desired 
action  as  well  as  words,  Towns  now  urged,  as  had  the 
Governor  of  Mississippi,  that  he  be  authorized  “to 
convoke  a  convention  to  take  into  consideration  the 
measures  proper  for  .  .  .  safety  and  preserva¬ 

tion,  in  the  event  of  the  passage  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso, 
or  other  kindred  measures,  by  the  Congress  of  the 
United  States.”3 

2  Most  of  the  Governor’s  views  on  economic  matters  were  praised 
by  even  the  most  conservative  Whig  papers,  which  again  illustrates  the 
extent  to  which  the  state  Democratic  party  had  come  under  the  control 
of  conservative  leaders  by  1850.  See,  e.g.,  the  Chronicle,  November 
8,  1849. 

3  Georgia  House  Journal,  1849-50,  pp.  37-50;  Debates  and  Proceedings 
of  the  Georgia  Convention,  1850,  Appendix ;  Letter  Books  of  the  Georgia 
Governor,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


219 


This  message  clearly  placed  Towns  in  the  front 
rank  of  those  southern-rights  leaders  who  were  de¬ 
manding  action  as  well  as  words.  It  received  wide 
attention  in  the  North,  where  it  was  regarded  as  a 
serious  move,4  and  was  enthusiastically  praised  by 
the  Democratic  press  of  Georgia  and  South  Carolina. 
In  the  latter  state,  it  was  received  as  the  most  hopeful 
sign  that  the  “cooperationists”  had  yet  seen  in  the 
sister  state,  and  the  South  Carolinian  was  encouraged 
to  remark  that  it  “had  always  trusted  in  Georgia.’’5 
The  Georgia  Whig  press  did  not  welcome  the  sugges¬ 
tion  of  a  state  convention,  however,  and  the  aggressive 
Chronicle  took  occasion  to  raise  again  the  cry  against 
“disunion.”  Towns’  appeal  for  a  special  convention, 
it  opined,  was  “a  confession  that  the  Democratic  state 
government  is  weak,”  and  thus  has  to  “call  in  a  New 
Power  which  is  to  do  a  thing  which  even  Governor 
ToWns  has  not  presumed  to  intimate  ought  to  be 
done.”6 

The  Governor’s  message  was  at  once  referred  in 
both  houses  to  the  standing  committees  on  “the  state 
of  the  Republic,”  after  which  action  most  of  the  time 
between  November  6  and  12  was  consumed  by  routine 
business.  There  was  considerable  excitement  in  the 
air,  however,  both  because  of  the  mutual  exchange  of 
views  between  members  and  because  the  news  coming 
in  on  national  affairs  was  disquieting.  The  southern- 
rights  men  were  particularly  incensed  by  the  news  from 
California.  Here  a  proposed  state  constitution  ex¬ 
cluding  slavery  had  been  adopted  a  few  weeks  before. 
The  opinion  expressed  by  Hopkins  Holsey  early  in  the 
year  now  became  general  among  this  group;  namely, 

4  See,  e.g.,  the  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  December  19,  1849. 

5  Columbia  Tri-Weekly  South  Carolinian,  November  10,  1849. 

8  Chronicle,  November  8,  1849. 


220 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


that  the  mixed  population  there  had  no  right  to  form 
a  state.  It  was  held,  moreover,  that  President  Tay¬ 
lor’s  part  in  backing  the  statehood  movement  proved 
it  an  effort  to  “apply  the  Proviso  in  disguise”  to  a 
state  so  outrageously  large  that  it  would  “swallow  the 
whole  West.”7  To  cap  the  insult,  it  was  now  learned 
that  a  Georgia  Whig  Representative,  Thomas  B.  King, 
had  “deserted”  his  post  in  a  critical  Congress  to  be¬ 
come  the  President’s  agent  in  carrying  out  this  unhal¬ 
lowed  design.  King  was  reported  to  be  urging  his  own 
election  as  a  senator  from  the  proposed  new  free  state. 

On  November  12  a  series  of  resolutions  on  the 
national  situation  was  reported  to  the  Georgia  House,8 
and  on  November  15  a  similar  series  was  presented 
to  the  Senate.9  These  resolutions,  drawn  up  in  re¬ 
sponse  to  the  Governor’s  message,  were  of  a  more 
radical  character  than  any  yet  presented  to  those 
bodies.  They  contained  the  usual  declarations  up¬ 
holding  slavery  and  asserting  the  unconstitutionality 
of  the  Proviso.  Those  of  the  House  contained  in  addi¬ 
tion  an  eighth  resolution  providing  for  the  calling  of 
a  state  convention  in  certain  contingencies,  and  also 
a  ninth,  which  conveyed  a  veiled  threat  of  secession. 
This  threat  was  contained  in  the  statement  that  “noth¬ 
ing  short  of  persistence  in  the  present  system  of  en¬ 
croachment  upon  our  rights  by  the  non-slaveholding 
states  can  induce  us  to  contemplate  the  possibility  of  a 
dissolution”  of  the  Union.10  For  the  first  time  the 
possibility  of  secession  was  thus  given  formal  expres¬ 
sion  in  Georgia,  and  the  general  reception  accorded 

'  Georgian,  November  26,  1849.  There  had  been  talk  of  including 
in  California  even  the  area  now  occupied  by  Nevada. 

8  Georgia  House  Journal,  1849-50,  p.  49. 

“  Georgia  Senate  Journal,  1849-50,  p.  63. 

10  House  Journal,  p.  49. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


221 


this  and  the  other  resolutions  at  once  indicated  that 
for  the  first  time  the  Georgia  assembly  was  in  the  con¬ 
trol  of  a  majority  composed  of  southern-rights  mem¬ 
bers. 

The  cumulative  effect  of  the  agitation  of  the  pre¬ 
ceding  year  and  of  contemporary  events  at  Washington 
and  throughout  the  nation  was  beginning  to  tell  even 
upon  the  Whig  members.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the 
resolutions  introduced  in  the  House  were  written  by 
the  Whig  Gartrell.  They  were  intended,  the  Savannah 
Republican  explained,  “to  set  the  Whigs  right  before 
the  public  on  slavery,” — thereby  admitting  by  implica¬ 
tion  that  there  had  been  some  doubt  on  this  point 
during  the  fall  campaign.11  It  was  the  swing  of  about 
half  of  the  Whigs  in  the  House  and  about  one  third 
of  those  in  the  Senate  to  the  southern-rights  position 
that  placed  the  control  of  the  Assembly  from  now  on 
in  the  hands  of  the  leaders  of  that  persuasion.  The 
number  of  Union  Democrats  who  sided  with  the  con¬ 
servative  Whigs  was  too  small  to  overcome  this  com¬ 
bination. 

Late  in  November  a  conference  of  the  Democratic 
leaders  of  both  houses  resulted  in  the  appointment  of 
a  special  joint  committee  on  the  state  of  the  republic, 
to  which  were  referred  all  bills  or  resolutions  relating 
to  the  slavery  controversy.  This  committee  was  domi¬ 
nated  by  Gartrell  and  the  militant  Calhounite,  W.  J. 
Lawton,  of  Scriven,  and  these  two  became  the  radi¬ 
cal  leaders  of  the  Assembly  during  the  weeks  that 
followed. 

On  December  19  the  joint  committee  reported 
again  a  series  of  resolutions  generally  similar  to  those 
which  Gartrell  had  originally  submitted  to  the  House.12 

11  Republican,  November  13,  1849. 

12  See  House  Journal,  pp.  72,  100,  315 ;  Senate  Journal,  pp.  309-312. 


222 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Lawton  had  added  meanwhile  a  long  preamble  and  an 
additional  resolution,13  which  were  acted  upon  separ¬ 
ately  and  so  may  be  considered  as  distinct  measures. 

The  preamble  reviewed  the  whole  story  of  “North¬ 
ern  encroachments”  and  declared  that  abolition,  “the 
last  dishonor  that  can  be  reserved  for  us,”  was  now  at 
hand.  Only  a  final  stand,  it  declared,  could  save  the 
South  from  this  dishonor.  In  a  word,  the  preamble 
was  a  restatement  of  Calhoun’s  “Southern  Platform.” 
It  is  interesting  to  recall  that  it  was  to  Lawton  that 
Calhoun  had  been  requested  to  send  resolutions  in  1847, 
and  that  Lawton  had  shortly  thereafter  introduced 
radical  resolutions  in  the  House  of  that  year,  only  to 
have  them  treated  with  scant  courtesy  by  the  Whig 
majority.  He  had  bided  his  time,  however,  had  been 
reelected  from  Scriven  in  1849  and  was  now  again 
urging  radical  action — this  time  upon  a  House  quite 
willing  to  give  ear  to  Calhoun’s  philosophy. 

Lawton’s  preamble  was  followed  by  a  new  resolu¬ 
tion,  which  urged  the  formal  adoption  of  the  southern 
party  movement.14  The  preamble  and  this  solidarity 
resolution  were  now  adopted  by  the  House,  despite 
opposition  by  a  minority  composed  of  members  of  both 
parties.15  A  resolution  was  adopted  at  the  same  time 
for  printing  and  distributing  five  thousand  copies 
throughout  the  state.  This  measure  meant  in  reality 
nothing  less  than  a  state  subsidy  for  southern-rights 
propaganda.  Fortunately  for  the  conservatives,  all  of 
Lawton’s  proposals  met  with  defeat  in  the  Senate, 
where  strong  opposition  developed  to  the  formal  adop¬ 
tion  of  a  southern  party.16 

13  Federal  Union,  February  12,  1850. 

14  House  Journal,  p.  314. 

15  Ibid.,  p.  315. 

16  Senate  Journal,  pp.  285,  286. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


223 


The  joint  committee  had  submitted  to  both  houses, 
in  addition  to  the  solidarity  resolution  now  defeated  in 
the  Senate,  a  series  of  ten  resolutions  similar  to  those 
originally  introduced  in  the  House  of  Representatives 
by  Gartrell.  We  have  already  noted  that  most  of  these 
resolutions  were  of  a  general  character,  but  that  the 
eighth  provided  for  the  calling  of  a  state  convention 
as  the  Governor  had  suggested,  and  that  the  ninth 
threatened  secession.  The  original  eighth  resolution 
indicated  three  events  which  would  justify  the  calling 
of  a  convention;  namely,  the  passage  of  the  Proviso, 
the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
or  the  continued  refusal  of  northern  states  to  deliver 
up  fugitive  slaves.  When  Gartrell  had  written,  at  the 
beginning  of  November,  these  seemed  the  chief  threats 
to  be  warned  against.  Since  that  time,  the  news  con¬ 
cerning  California  had  added  a  fourth.  Hence  the 
joint  committee  added  a  phrase  destined  to  become 
the  chief  subject  of  controversy  within  the  legislature 
and  later  the  cause  of  the  actual  meeting  of  the  state 
convention.  This  was  a  curt  statement  naming  as  an 
additional  contingency  calling  for  a  convention,  “the 
admission  of  California  in  its  present  pretended  organ¬ 
ization.”17 

At  about  the  same  time  that  the  joint  committee 
was  reporting  the  ten  resolutions  and  Lawton  was 
attempting  to  add  his  preamble  to  them,  separate  bills 
were  introduced  in  both  houses  calling  for  the  state 
convention  in  case  the  same  events  named  in  the  eighth 
resolution  occurred.  Furthermore,  Jenkins,  Whig 
leader  of  Augusta,  introduced  resolutions  approving 
the  Mississippi  call  for  a  southern  convention  and  pro¬ 
viding  a  system  for  selecting  state  delegates  to  it. 


17  House  Journal,  p.  485. 


224 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Final  consideration  of  all  of  these  measures,  however, 
had  to  be  postponed  until  after  the  Christmas  recess; 
when  the  legislature  reconvened  in  mid-January,  the 
ten  resolutions  again  received  primary  consideration. 

The  first  seven,  of  a  general  character,  were  ac¬ 
cepted  without  serious  protest  on  January  26,  but 
opposition  at  once  developed  against  the  eighth  resolu¬ 
tion,  which  now  read  as  follows: 

That  in  the  event  of  the  passage  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso  by 
Congress,  the  abolition  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia, 
the  admission  of  California  as  a  state  in  its  present  pretended 
organization,  or  the  continued  refusal  of  the  non-slave  holding 
states  to  deliver  up  fugitive  slaves  as  provided  in  the  constitu¬ 
tion,  it  will  become  the  immediate  and  imperative  duty  of  the 
people  in  this  state  to  meet  in  convention  to  take  into  consid¬ 
eration  the  mode  and  measure  of  redress. 

When  this  was  read  again  in  the  House  on  Janu¬ 
ary  24,  two  plans  of  opposition  at  once  developed.  Jen¬ 
kins,  spokesman  for  the  conservative  Whigs,  moved 
that  consideration  of  the  entire  resolution  be  postponed 
until  after  the  meeting  of  the  proposed  southern  con¬ 
vention.  The  obvious  motive  here  was  to  delay  plans 
for  decisive  state  action  until  there  had  been  time  for 
a  general  compromise  of  the  whole  sectional  struggle. 
On  the  same  day,  W.  T.  Wofford,  for  the  Union  Demo¬ 
crats,  moved  to  amend  the  phrase,  “the  passage  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso  by  Congress,”  by  inserting  after  the 
word  “Proviso”  the  phrase  “over  territory  south  of 
36°  30',  known  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  Line.”18 

Jenkins’  motion  for  delay  was  lost  by  a  large  ma¬ 
jority,  but  Wofford’s  amendment  received  serious  con¬ 
sideration.  This  is  of  interest,  because  it  shows  that 
at  least  a  few  conservative  Union  Democrats  were 
still  standing  by  the  original  party  platform  of  1847 


18  House  Journal,  pp.  485,  486. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


225 


and  1848,  which  had  offered  the  Missouri  line  as  a 
compromise  scheme.  This  offer  the  southern-rights 
Democrats  had  officially  held  to  as  late  as  the  election 
of  the  preceding  October  in  order  to  placate  the  conser¬ 
vative  faction;  but  they  had  abandoned  it  in  spirit 
since  the  early  summer  of  1849,  when  their  temper 
became  less  conciliatory  and  when  it  became  increas¬ 
ingly  apparent  that  the  North  would  not  accept  the 
Missouri  line  anyway.  Now  safely  in  power,  the  sou¬ 
thern-rights  element  need  no  longer  suppress  its  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  Missouri  Compromise  scheme.  The  con¬ 
servative  Whigs,  however,  were  still  anxious  to  secure 
a  compromise  and  could  be  counted  on  to  back  Wof¬ 
ford’s  motion  more  generally  than  they  would  the  mo¬ 
tion  of  their  own  leader. 

Wofford’s  proposed  amendment  was,  therefore, 
supported  in  debate  by  Jenkins  and  by  J.  A.  Nesbit,  of 
Macon,  another  conservative  Whig  leader.  This  com¬ 
bination  of  moderate  Whig  and  Democratic  elements 
in  the  eighth-resolution  debate  was  the  first  clear  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  coming  realignment  of  party  forces  in  the 
state,  a  realignment  that  became  the  basis  for  the  sub¬ 
sequent  Union  party;  although  there  is  no  evidence 
that  such  a  party  was  consciously  planned  until  about 
a  fortnight  after  this  debate  occurred.  In  like  manner 
the  attack  of  Lawton  upon  Wofford’s  amendment  was 
joined  by  the  radical  Whig,  Gartrell,  and  this  align¬ 
ment  was  suggestive  of  the  elements  which  were  later 
formally  merged  into  the  Southern  Rights  party. 

The  debate  lasted  through  January  24,  25,  and  26. 
It  was  the  most  important  one  of  the  session  and  de¬ 
rives  additional  interest  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
concomitant  with  similarly  stirring  discussions  in  the 
national  Congress  at  Washington.  Jenkins  and  Nes- 


226 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


bit  claimed  that  the  principle  of  the  Missouri  line  would 
unite  the  South  and  at  the  same  time  could  be  accepted 
by  the  conservative  North,  thus  forming  the  basis  of 
a  compromise  that  would  save  the  Union.  Lawton  re¬ 
plied  that  it  was  inconsistent  with  the  other  resolutions 
denying  the  right  of  Congress  to  interfere  with  slavery 
in  the  territories.  He  proceeded  to  read  the  resolu¬ 
tions  of  the  Georgia  Whig  Senate  of  1847  to  prove 
that  that  party  had  then  opposed  the  Missouri  line. 
Wofford  countered  by  recalling  that  Lawton’s  party, 
on  the  other  hand,  had  then  favored  the  line.  It  was 
no  more  inconsistent  with  a  denial  of  congressional 
power  over  the  territories  in  1850,  Wofford  declared, 
than  it  was  in  1847,  when  all  the  Democrats  had  offi¬ 
cially  accepted  it.  Gartrell  here  came  to  the  assistance 
of  his  Democratic  ally  by  making  the  pertinent  point 
that  when  the  Missouri  Compromise  had  been  offered 
to  the  North  in  1847,  it  was  hoped  it  would  be  accepted. 
Now  subsequent  events,  particularly  the  defeat  of  the 
Missouri  line  amendment  to  the  Oregon  territorial 
bill,  had  demonstrated  conclusively  that  the  North 
would  not  accept  that  compromise.  It  was  foolish  to 
offer  the  North  a  concession  that  would  only  lead  to 
the  humiliation  of  a  refusal. 

Jenkins  answered  that  it  was  even  more  foolish 
to  call  a  state  convention  for  reasons  which  were  in¬ 
defensible.  He  pointed  out  that  the  admission  of  Cali¬ 
fornia  as  a  free  state  was  entirely  constitutional  and 
that  a  desire  to  protect  slavery  should  not  lead  them 
into  the  weak  position  of  denying  it.  This  would 
be  particularly  unfortunate,  because  no  act  of  theirs 
could  ever  carry  slavery  into  so  unsuitable  a  country 
anyway.  Jones,  of  Paulding,  denied  this  last  point, 
claiming  that  gold  mines  could  be  best  worked  with 
slaves  and  that  California  was,  therefore,  well  adapted 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


227 


to  the  institution.  He  concluded  with  the  usual  Demo¬ 
cratic  protest  against  allowing  a  migratory  population 
there  to  form  a  state  that  “swallowed  the  whole  west.” 
Ramsey,  of  Harris,  further  stirred  up  the  “Ultra” 
members  by  proclaiming  excitedly  that  slavery  should 
be  everywhere  “untrameled”  and  that  he  would  “see 
it  carried  to  California  at  the  point  of  the  bayonette  if 

)J1  Q 

necessary. 

On  January  26,  the  vote  was  finally  taken  in  the 
House  on  the  Missouri  line  amendment  to  the  eighth 
resolution,  eighty-one  members  voting  against  and 
forty-two  in  favor  of  the  measure.  Twenty-seven 
Whigs  combined  with  southern-rights  Democrats  in 
defeating  it,  while  six  Union  Democrats  joined  the 
conservative  Whigs  in  supporting  it.  An  equal  num¬ 
ber  of  Union  Democrats  from  Cherokee  failed  to  back 
the  amendment,  perhaps  because  they  had  been  con¬ 
vinced  by  Gartrell  that  it  was  useless  to  offer  the  Mis¬ 
souri  principle  to  the  North.20 

At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  southern-rights 
feeling  was  further  agitated  by  an  incident  that  well 
illustrates  the  character  of  some  of  the  forces  influenc¬ 
ing  the  acts  of  the  Assembly.  A  special  message  was 
received  from  Governor  Towns  transmitting  resolu¬ 
tions  on  slavery  lately  received  from  the  Connecticut 
Assembly.  These  resolutions  demanded  the  passage 
of  the  Proviso,  the  privilege  of  jury  trial  for  fugitives 
claimed  as  slaves  in  the  North,  and  concluded  with  the 
announcement  that  “no  threats  of  disunion”  would  de¬ 
ter  Connecticut  from  supporting  these  measures-21 

19  For  these  debates,  see  the  chief  Georgia  papers  for  January  29 
and  30,  1850.  The  summary  here  given  is  based  upon  the  accounts 
in  the  Federal  Union  and  the  Chronicle. 

House  Journal,  p.  487. 

“For  these  resolutions  in  full  see  Ames,  State  Documents,  pp.  261, 
262. 


228 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  challenge  in  such  statements  was  unmistakeable, 
and  Governor  Towns  was  prompt  to  make  the  most  of 
it.  His  message  made  bold  to  say : 

The  absurd  and  insolent  pretensions  so  generally  set  up  and 
advanced  by  the  North  are  boldly  set  forth  and  insultingly  re¬ 
affirmed  in  these  Resolutions.  Believing  that  now  is  the  time 
for  Georgia  to  act  in  a  manner  worthy  of  herself,  I  can  but 
repeat  the  opinion,  expressed  in  my  first  message  to  the  Legis¬ 
lature  on  this  subject;  that  your  property,  your  honor,  and  the 
Union  itself  will  be  lost  forever  if  the  South  fails  to  assert  its 
rights  and  adopt  measures  to  carry  them  out.22 

The  response  of  both  houses  was  the  passage  of 
resolutions  to  return  “under  a  blank  cover”  these  and 
any  other  resolutions  on  the  subject  that  might  subse¬ 
quently  be  received  from  Connecticut.  If  Towns 
hoped,  however,  that  his  message  would  so  arouse  sec¬ 
tional  ardor  in  the  assembly  as  to  discourage  further 
opposition  to  the  eighth  resolution  and  the  state  con¬ 
vention  bill,  he  was  doomed  to  disappointment. 

The  amendment  to  the  eighth  resolution  now  hav¬ 
ing  been  defeated  in  the  House,  the  resolution  was 
there  adopted  by  a  vote  of  ninety-two  to  twenty-eight. 
The  ninth  resolution,  implying  the  possibility  of  seces¬ 
sion,  was  then  accepted  without  opposition,  Linton 
Stephens,  of  all  the  House,  alone  voting  against  it.23 
The  “Georgia  Resolutions”  thus  safely  passed  the 
House.24 

The  state  convention  bill  was  now  in  order  in  that 
body.  The  first  clause  in  this  bill  was  similar  in  word¬ 
ing  to  the  eighth  resolution,  just  passed,  in  that  it 
named  the  contingencies  upon  which  the  convention 
should  be  called  by  the  Governor.  This  fact  gave  the 

a  Ho-use  Journal,  pp.  488,  489. 

23  House  Journal,  pp.  509,  510. 

u  For  their  final  form  see  Acts  of  Georgia,  1849-50,  pp.  409,  410; 
Ames,  State  Documents,  pp.  259-261. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


229 


conservatives  an  opportunity  to  repeat  the  opposition 
just  made  to  the  resolution.  As  soon  as  this  first  clause 
was  considered,  an  effort  was  made  to  amend  it  by 
adding  the  Missouri  line  to  the  phrases  concerning 
California  and  the  Proviso.  J.  W.  Anderson,  of  Sa¬ 
vannah,  the  Democratic  speaker,  lost  patience  and  ruled 
the  amendment  out  of  order.  The  majority  were  fair, 
however,  and  would  not  sustain  his  ruling.  The 
amendment  was  then  lost,  sixty-seven  to  forty-six,  and 
the  convention  bill  passed,  ninety-two  to  twenty-eight. 
Numbers  of  Whigs  and  Union  Democrats,  who  sup¬ 
ported  the  proposed  amendment,  finally  voted  for  the 
bill  to  show  that  the  state  was  behind  the  measure.23 
All  of  the  twelve  who  finally  opposed  it  were  ultra¬ 
conservative  Whig  followers  of  Jenkins  and  Linton 
Stephens. 

The  conservative  Whigs  decided  that  here  was  the 
time  to  record  formally  their  opposition  to  the  Cali¬ 
fornia  clause  and  to  appeal  to  the  people  of  the  state 
on  this  issue.  Accordingly,  the  Whigs  were  asked  to 
sign  a  protest  to  be  entered  on  the  House  Journal.  The 
twenty-five  odd  members  who  were  voting  with  the 
southern-rights  Democrats  would  have  nothing  of 
it,  and  a  few  of  the  Whigs  who  had  supported  the 
amendments  failed  to  sign  the  protest.  Twenty-nine 
conservative  Whigs  and  one  union  Democrat  finally 
affixed  their  names.26  The  statement  made  by  the 
signers  made  clear  the  issue  involved  and  the  reasons 
for  their  stand.  They  insisted  that  it  was  unjustifiable 
to  oppose  California’s  right  to  admission  and  “solemn¬ 
ly  protested”  against  calling  a  state  convention  for  this 
reason,  as  this  was  “a  measure  whose  inevitable  ten¬ 
dency  leads  to  a  dissolution  of  this  ‘most  perfect 

25  House  Journal,  pp.  510,  520;  Federal  Union,  January  29,  1850. 

20  House  Journal,  p.  547. 


230 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Union.’  ”  The  bill,  it  was  declared,  was  particularly 
unfortunate  at  a  time  of  crisis,  which  demanded  calm¬ 
ness  and  moderation  rather  than  precipitate  action.27 

Despite  this  protest,  the  convention  bill  was  soon 
made  law  by  passage  in  the  Senate28  and  by  the  ap¬ 
proval  of  the  Governor.  As  finally  worded,  it  de¬ 
clared  that,  should  any  of  the  contingencies  named  in 
the  eighth  resolution  occur,  “it  should  be  the  duty 
of  the  Governor  to  order,  within  60  days,  an  election 
in  every  county  to  a  State  Convention,  to  convene  at 
the  capitol  within  20  days  after  the  election.”  A  fund 
of  thirty  thousand  dollars  was  to  be  appropriated  for 
the  expenses  of  the  convention.  A  clause  requiring 
members  to  take  an  oath  of  loyalty  to  the  state  was 
struck  out  just  before  the  passage  of  the  bill.29 

The  House  had  now  passed  the  ten  resolutions  and 
the  convention  bill.  During  January  it  had  also  pro¬ 
ceeded  with  the  consideration  of  the  third  measure  of 
primary  importance  to  the  southern  movement ;  namely, 
the  resolutions  pertaining  to  a  southern  convention. 
These  resolutions  were  originally  written  by  Charles 
J.  Jenkins,  of  Augusta,  and  declared  that  “We 
cordially  concurr  with  Mississippi  in  the  measure  of 
calling  a  Southern  Convention.”  They  provided  that 
the  Georgia  delegates  thereto  should  be  chosen  by  an 
electoral  convention  called  for  that  purpose.  Jen¬ 
kins,  the  Whig  leader  in  the  House,  proposed  this  reso¬ 
lution  in  order  to  make  it  plain  that  the  Whigs  were 
true  to  the  South  and  would  not  oppose  the  Nashville 
meeting.  At  the  same  time,  the  scheme  he  proposed 
for  choosing  the  Georgia  delegates  was  such  as  to  make 
it  doubtful  whether  the  state  would  actually  be  repre- 

21  Ibid. 

28  Senate  Journal,  p.  493. 

23  House  Journal,  pp.  513-517. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


231 


sented.  Should  a  compromise  be  accepted  in  the  na¬ 
tional  Congress  prior  to  the  meeting  of  a  state  elector¬ 
al  convention,  it  was  quite  possible  that  this  latter  body 
would  be  disinclined  to  send  any  delegates  to  Nashville 
at  all.  It  seems  likely  that  some  such  hope  was  in 
the  minds  of  the  Whigs  in  the  legislature  when  Jen¬ 
kins’  plan  was  introduced.30 

Although  the  Senate  accepted  Jenkins’  plan,  oppo¬ 
sition  developed  among  the  House  Democrats  to  the 
idea  of  an  electoral  convention.  Amendments  were, 
therefore,  adopted  in  both  Houses  providing  for  the 
election  of  the  state’s  representatives  by  the  several 
congressional  districts.  The  voters  were  accustomed 
to  the  machinery  of  electing  representatives  to  the 
national  Congress  from  these  districts,  and  this  same 
machinery  was  now  to  be  utilized  for  the  unusual 
purpose  of  electing  representatives  to  a  sectional 
congress.31 

It  was  provided,  however,  that  the  governor  should 
appoint  the  alternates  in  case  any  vacancies  occurred 
after  the  election,  such  appointments  to  be  made  from 
the  party  among  whose  representatives  the  vacancy 
had  occurred.32  This  provision,  because  of  circum¬ 
stances  that  later  developed,  did  give  Towns  a  con¬ 
siderable  influence  upon  the  personnel  of  the  state’s 
delegation.  Since  Towns  was  a  strong  Calhounite,  his 
appointments  were  not  likely  to  be  of  a  strictly  non¬ 
partisan  character.  All  things  considered,  then,  the 
plan  of  selecting  delegates  to  Nashville  represented  a 

30  Explanation  of  Jenkins’  plan  as  given  by  his  Augusta  colleague, 
A.  J.  Miller,  Chronicle,  April  12,  1850. 

31  For  the  plan  of  election,  see  House  Journal,  pp.  350,  422,  494, 
656;  Senate  Journal,  pp.  494,  495. 

32  Senate  Journal,  p.  648. 


232 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


tactical  victory  for  the  southern-rights  majority  in  the 
legislature.33 

By  February  5  the  Nashville  convention  bill,  the 
ten  resolutions,  and  the  state  convention  bill  had  all 
been  accepted  by  the  Senate  as  well  as  by  the  House.34 
The  program  of  the  southern-rights  group,  how¬ 
ever,  was  not  entirely  completed  with  the  passage  of 
the  three  main  measures.  Several  minor  ones  were 
debated  in  February,  which  are  chiefly  interesting  as 
expressions  of  a  generally  excited  state  of  mind  upon 
all  matters  pertaining  to  slavery  and  to  the  North. 
Bills  were  introduced  by  the  radicals,  for  instance,  to 
prevent  northern  men  from  collecting  debts  in  Geor¬ 
gia,35  and  to  levy  a  sales  tax  upon  northern  goods.36 
A  resolution  was  also  introduced  calling  upon  the  Geor¬ 
gia  Congressmen  to  leave  Washington  immediately  in 
case  the  Proviso  passed.  Only  the  most  extreme  mem¬ 
bers,  however,  would  support  these  retaliatory  meas¬ 
ures,  and  they  failed  to  pass. 

A  number  of  interesting  bills  were  introduced 
concerning  Negroes  and  slavery.  Perhaps  the  most 
important  was  that  which  provided  for  a  repeal  of  the 
law  against  the  interstate  slave  trade.  Southern- 
rights  men  held  that  it  was  not  only  difficult  but  un¬ 
desirable  to  enforce  the  law.  Jones,  of  Paulding, 
claimed  that  more  slaves  were  needed  as  plantations 
expanded  and  that  free  admission  of  them  to  Georgia 
would  “increase  •  .  .  the  raising  of  such  property 
in  the  sections  of  the  Union  best  adapted  to  its  cul¬ 
ture.”  McDougal,  of  Muscogee,  reminded  his  hearers 

33  For  a  summary  of  the  methods  of  election  adopted  in  the  other 
southern  states,  see  D.  T.  Herndon,  "The  Nashville  Convention,”  Ala¬ 
bama  Historical  Society  Publications,  V.  213-216. 

34  Senate  Journal,  pp.  493,  509. 

35  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  February  6,  1850. 

30  Philadelphia  North  American,  December  7,  1849. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


233 


that  an  increase  in  the  slave  population  would  mean  an 
increase,  under  the  “federal  ratio,”  of  the  state’s  con¬ 
gressional  representation.  Kennan,  a  conservative 
Whig,  denied  that  the  repeal  of  the  law  would  add  to 
the  Negro  population  and  declared  it  would  only  in¬ 
crease  the  Negro  transients,  who  would  be  sent  on  to 
the  Southwest ;  meanwhile,  the  slaves  would  be  drained 
out  of  the  border  states  and  leave  them  practically 
northern  states.  Other  Whigs  added  that  an  unlim¬ 
ited  slave  trade  would  disgrace  the  state  with  the 
“unmoral  exhibition  of  slave  markets”  and  would  also 
embarrass  it  by  the  presence  of  the  vicious  Negroes, 
who  were  always  the  first  to  be  sold.37  The  bill  passed 
both  houses,  however,  prior  to  the  Christmas  recess. 

On  November  11,  two  days  after  the  bill  to  repeal 
the  anti-slave-trade  law  was  introduced,  it  was  fol¬ 
lowed  by  another  to  deport  all  free  Negroes  in  the 
state  to  Liberia  at  the  state’s  expense.  This  proposal 
may  have  been  suggested  to  the  extremists  by  a  simi¬ 
lar  measure  then  pending  in  the  South  Carolina 
legislature.  Southern-rights  extremists  insisted  that 
free  Negroes  were  a  dangerous  racial  element,  that 
they  were  a  vicious  lot  and  given  to  making  trouble 
with  the  slaves.  This  view  was  supported  by  an  inter¬ 
esting  petition  from  an  association  of  mechanics  in 
Augusta,  which  was  doubtless  motivated  by  a  dislike 
for  free-Negro  economic  competition.  These  attacks, 
however,  elicited  praise  of  the  freedmen  class  by  mem¬ 
bers  who  insisted  that  the  free  Negroes  were  not  at 
all  a  vicious  group  and  that  they  had  rights  as  “Quasi¬ 
citizens,  with  the  status  of  infants,”  which  should  not 
be  denied  to  them.  The  bill  was  finally  defeated  in  the 

37  The  account  of  this  debate  is  based  on  that  given  in  the  Chronicle, 
November  15,  1849. 


234 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


House,  sixty-nine  to  forty-five.  A  bill  to  sell  outside 
the  state  all  free  Negroes  remaining  in  it  on  February 
1,  1851,  was  likewise  defeated.38 

In  addition  to  the  various  measures  mentioned,  the 
legislature  considered  and  passed  an  unusually  large 
number  of  routine  bills  and  resolutions.  Upon  some 
of  these  the  two  parties  divided  in  the  traditional  man¬ 
ner,  as  when  the  Senate  Democrats  passed  a  resolution 
upholding  the  tariff  of  1846  by  the  strict  party  vote  of 
twenty-three  to  twenty.39  As  the  session  progressed, 
however,  and  the  measures  pertaining  to  slavery  were 
considered,  the  tendency  toward  the  party  realignments 
noted  above  became  more  apparent.  The  long  threat¬ 
ened  split  upon  the  sectional  issue  was  soon  to  take 
place  between  the  Union  and  southern-rights  factions 
in  each  party.  It  will  be  remembered  that  the  southern- 
rights  members  had  urged  resolutions  proclaiming  the 
abandonment  of  the  old  parties  and  had  constantly 
urged  conservative  members  to  join  with  them  in  com¬ 
mon  opposition  to  the  North.  They  had  even  intro¬ 
duced  a  bill  in  the  House  “to  repeal  the  present  Whig 
and  Democratic  parties  and  in  lieu  thereof  to  establish 
a  Southern  Independent  Republican  Party.”40  Physi¬ 
cians  may  indeed  heal  themselves,  but  politicians  can 
hardly  be  expected  to  “repeal”  parties.  Instead  of 
joining  the  southern-rights  group,  the  conservative 
Whigs  and  Union  Democrats  began  to  consider  a 
mutual  alliance  in  a  new  “Union  Party.” 

The  occasion  of  its  formation  was,  curiously 
enough,  an  incident  that  in  normal  times  would  have 
but  strengthened  traditional  party  lines.  It  happened 

38  Boston  Liberator,  January  11;  Savannah  Republican,  February  4, 
1850. 

39  Vote  of  November  15,  1849,  Senate  Journal,  p.  63. 

30  For  comment  thereon,  see  the  Boston  Liberator,  January  11,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


235 


that,  as  soon  as  the  southern-rights  group  had  passed 
the  state  convention  bill,  the  Democratic  majority  pro¬ 
ceeded  with  a  long  desired  measure;  namely,  the  re¬ 
arrangement  of  both  the  state  senatorial  and  the  con¬ 
gressional  districts  so  as  to  improve  the  chances  of 
Democratic  nominees  in  these  divisions.  The  Demo¬ 
crats  claimed  that  their  intention  was  to  correct  the 
injustice  of  the  Whig  gerrymander  of  1843, 41  but  they 
admitted  that  their  chief  purpose  was  to  put  the 
powerful  Toombs  and  Stephens  into  one  district,  or 
into  “moderate  Whig  districts,”  where  they  could  not 
roll  up  the  majorities  of  thirteen  to  seventeen  hundred 
votes  that  now  enabled  them  “to  ignore  the  wishes  of 
the  majority  of  the  Georgia  people.”42  The  Whigs  op¬ 
posed  the  scheme  bitterly,  and  their  friends,  the  Chero¬ 
kee  Democrats,  whose  own  congressional  districts  were 
not  involved  in  the  controversy,  showed  some  inclina¬ 
tion  to  side  with  them.  Personal  encounters  occurred 
on  the  floor  of  the  House  between  Democrats  of  the 
two  groups,43  and  the  Whigs  finally  carried  things  to 
extremes  by  absenting  themselves  from  the  House  in 
a  body,  thereby  preventing  a  quorum  and  all  action  for 
four  successive  days.44  Only  Jenkins,  of  Augusta,  re¬ 
mained  in  his  seat  for  a  part  of  this  time.45  Hastily 
summoned  Democratic  absentees  finally  restored  a 
quorum,  whereupon  the  Whigs  returned,  and  the  ger¬ 
rymander  bill  was  passed,  though  it  was  later  defeated 
in  the  Senate. 

41  Map  No.  6,  p.  171.  This  gerrymander  had  worried  even  the  na¬ 
tional  leaders  of  the  party.  See  Polk  to  Buchanan,  October  3,  1844, 
Moore  (ed.),  The  Works  of  James  Buchanan,  VI.  72. 

“There  was  usually  a  slight  majority  of  Democratic  votes  in  the 
state. 

43  Chronicle,  February  20,  1850. 

44  House  Journal,  pp.  437,  458,  480,  843,  855. 

45  C.  C.  Jones,  Life  of  Ex-Governor  C.  J.  Jenkins,  p.  12,  says  that 
Jenkins  never  missed  attendance.  The  Journals  show,  however,  that 
he  was  absent  at  times  in  this  period. 


236 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


It  was  during  this  struggle,  and  while  the  Whigs 
were  spending  the  days  in  Milledgeville  without  at¬ 
tending  sessions,  that  the  first  conscious  plans  were 
made  for  the  organization  of  a  Union  party  in  Geor¬ 
gia.  This  was  the  logical  step  to  take  under  the  cir¬ 
cumstances.  The  gerrymander  struggle  supplied  the 
bitterness  and  the  bolt  from  the  House  the  leisure  con¬ 
ducive  to  its  final  execution.  Union  Democrats,  as 
well  as  Whigs,  were  named  at  the  time  as  leaders  of 
the  proposed  organization.  It  was  rumored,  for  in¬ 
stance,  that  Wofford  was  to  be  the  new  party’s  candi¬ 
date  for  governor  in  1851.  Others  spoke  of  bringing 
Cobb  back  from  Washington  for  this  honor.46 

The  move  to  form  a  Union  party  was  certain,  by  the 
mere  process  of  elimination,  to  result  in  the  formation 
of  a  Southern-rights  party.  In  fact,  the  attempt  to 
form  such  a  party  and  to  make  it  all-inclusive  had  been 
going  on  all  winter.  When  the  legislature  adjourned, 
February  23,  the  members  returned  to  their  homes  to 
organize  their  constituents  on  the  new  issues  and  along 
the  new  party  lines. 

These  constituents  had  been  watching  the  acts  of 
the  legislature  through  the  winter,  but  their  attention 
had  also  been  focused,  probably  even  to  a  greater  de¬ 
gree,  upon  the  developments  in  Congress.  It  is  now 
well  to  recall  the  chief  features  of  the  dramatic  Con¬ 
gressional  session  of  1849-1850,  with  especial  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  leading  part  taken  therein  by  the  Georgia 
delegation. 

The  Georgia  representatives  and  senators  arrived 
promptly  in  Washington  for  the  opening  of  the  thirty- 

48  This  account  of  the  origin  of  the  Union  Party  is  based  on  that 
given  in  the  Federal  Union.  March  4,  1851.  This  paper  was  unfriendly, 
but  its  editor  was  on  the  spot,  and  his  story  is  consistent  with  the  other 
facts  known.  The  formal  organization  of  the  Union  Party,  planned 
from  this  time  on,  was  not  completed  until  the  following  December. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


237 


first  Congress.  The  state’s  delegation  was  about  equally 
divided  between  the  parties;  the  'Whigs  being  led  as 
usual  by  Toombs,  Stephens  and  Berrien,  the  Demo¬ 
crats  by  Cobb  and  H.  A.  Haralson.47  Three  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  Georgia  delegation  were  destined  to  play 
major  roles  in  the  coming  sectional  drama. 

The  situation  in  Congress  was  disquieting.  In  the 
Senate  the  two  major  parties  were  well  balanced,  but 
in  the  House,  where  the  Democrats  had  a  slightly 
larger  group  than  the  Whigs,  the  balance  of  power 
was  held  by  thirteen  radical  Free-Soilers.  The  alarm 
with  which  the  Georgia  Whig  members  viewed  this 
situation  was  suddenly  intensified,  soon  after  their 
arrival,  by  the  discovery  that  their  growing  distrust 
of  Taylor  was  well  founded.  The  President  had  indeed 
gone  over  to  the  enemy.48  Toombs  and  Stephens  im¬ 
mediately  interviewed  the  President  and  were  given 
frankly  to  understand  that  he  would  sign  the  Proviso1 
if  it  reached  him.49 

Here  was  a  truly  alarming  situation.  The  very 
leader  whom  Toombs  and  Stephens  had  regarded  as  a 
guarantor  of  southern  rights  would  no  longer  defend 
them.  It  seemed  to  the  Georgians  that,  if  the  bulk 
of  the  Whig  party  could  also  not  be  trusted,  true 
southerners  must  fall  back  on  the  final  defence  offered 

47  The  Georgia  delegation  included  Senators  Berrien  and  W.  C.  Daw¬ 
son,  the  latter  a  Whig  who  had  replaced  H.  V.  Johnson,  after  the  latter 
had  filled  out  the  unexpired  portion  of  Colquitt’s  term.  In  the  House 
were  the  Whigs,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  A.  F.  Owen ;  T.  B.  King,  the 
fourth  Whig,  resigned  in  order  to  represent  the  President  in  California. 
In  the  House  also  were  the  Union  Democrats,  Cobb  and  T.  C.  Hackett 
(the  latter  succeeded  J.  H.  Lumpkin)  and  the  southern-rights  Demo¬ 
crats,  Haralson  and  M.  J.  Wellborn. 

48  There  were  two  versions  as  to  why  this  had  occurred.  See,  for  the 
southern  accounts,  Coleman,  Crittenden,  I.  364,  366;  Phillips,  Robert 
Toombs,  pp.  65.  66;  for  the  northern  account,  Thurlow  Weed,  Auto¬ 
biography,  pp.  590,  591 ;  Giddings,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  p.  308. 

4B  Toombs  to  Crittenden,  April  23,  1850,  Crittenden  MSS. 


238 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


by  a  unified  southern  party.  They  put  the  test  at  once 
to  the  Whigs,  assembled  in  caucus  on  December  1. 
Their  efifort  to  pledge  the  party  against  the  Proviso 
failed,  even  with  the  southern  members,  most  of  the 
latter  still  desiring  to  evade  the  issue.  Toombs, 
Stephens,  Owen  and  three  others  thereupon  withdrew 
from  the  caucus  and,  for  the  time  being,  from  the 
party.50  The  Georgia  Whig  congressmen,  after  tak¬ 
ing  an  active  part  against  the  southern  movement  in 
the  state  campaign  during  the  fall,  had  apparently 
joined  that  very  movement  immediately  upon  reaching 
Washington. 

The  House  and  Senate  met  for  organization  on 
December  3.  The  former  was  immediately  involved 
in  a  bitter  struggle  over  the  election  of  a  Speaker,  each 
party  being  desirous  of  controlling  the  appointment  of 
committees  dealing  with  matters  relating  to  the  sec¬ 
tional  controversy.  In  the  course  of  this  struggle 
Toombs,  supported  by  Stephens  and  Owen,  became  the 
very  leader  of  the  “Fire-eaters”  in  the  House,  who  de¬ 
manded  that  no  member  unfriendly  to  the  South  should 
secure  the  coveted  position.  He  boldly  demanded 
compromise  or  disunion  and  startled  the  House  with 
perhaps  the  greatest  display  of  oratorical  fireworks 
which  that  body  had  ever  beheld.51  After  protracted 
parliamentary  procedure,  however,  the  Democrats 
finally  secured  the  election,  placing  another  Georgian, 
Howell  Cobb,  in  the  chair.  Cobb,  true  to  his  role  as  a 
conservative,  had  remained  calm,  the  while  his  Whig 
colleagues  became  excited,  and  used  his  influence  to 

60  Ibid. 

61  Congressional  Globe,  31  Congress,  1  Session,  pp.  27,  28;  Phillips, 
Robert  Toombs,  pp.  68-72.  Toombs’  efforts  were  “magnificent”  or 
“boisterous,”  as  one  wished  to  view  them.  Cf.  Phillips,  Toombs,  p.  72, 
and  Giddings,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  pp.  307,  308. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


239 


harmonize  his  party  at  the  very  time  that  Toombs  and 
Stephens  seemed  about  to  disrupt  theirs.52 

Meanwhile,  the  Senate  was  being  deluged  with 
bills,  resolutions,  and  debates  relating  to  all  phases  of 
the  slavery  controversy.  The  friends  of  Taylor’s  ad¬ 
ministration  were  urging  his  general  plan,  which  was 
simply  to  close  the  whole  controversy  over  the  terri¬ 
tories  by  the  prompt  admission  of  California  and  New 
Mexico  into  the  Union.53  The  southern-rights  men 
would  oppose  this  as  a  “Proviso  in  disguise,”  since 
California  had  adopted  a  free-state  constitution,  but 
the  President  hoped  the  southern  Whigs  would  sup¬ 
port  the  plan  in  order  to  end  the  struggle  and  quiet  the 
country. 

The  conservative  Whigs  back  in  the  Georgia  legis¬ 
lature  were  indeed,  as  has  been  noted,  actually  favor¬ 
ing  the  admission  of  California  at  that  very  moment, 
on  the  terms  that  the  President  proposed;  and  the 
Georgia  Whig  editors  desired  it  for  the  same  reasons 
as  those  which  motivated  the  President.  The  attitude 
of  southern  senators  at  Washington,  however,  was 
another  matter;  and  it  soon  became  apparent  that 
many  of  them,  including  Berrien  and  Dawson,  would 
not  accept  the  President’s  formula.  Its  very  simplicity 
now  rendered  it  unacceptable.  The  excitement  of  the 
early  debates  tended  now  to  make  the  southern  Whigs 
ask  more  than  the  President  offered.  It  was  becom¬ 
ing  increasingly  obvious  that,  if  the  Union  was  to  be 
saved,  the  entire  slavery  controversy  must  be  settled. 

62  Congressional  Globe,  31  Congress,  1  Session,  p.  67 ;  Cobb  to  his 
wife,  December  22,  1849,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence, 

p.  180. 

“  For  the  defence  of  Taylor’s  plan,  see  J.  S.  Pike,  First  Blows  of  the 
Civil  War,  (New  York,  1879),  pp.  22,  53,  55,  64;  also  the  daily  issues 
of  the  Washington  Republic,  e.g.,  that  of  April  24,  1850. 


240 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


California’s  admission  must  be  made  contingent  upon 
some  general  solution  of  the  whole  problem. 

This  attitude  led  Clay  to  introduce  in  the  Senate, 
on  January  28,  1850,  his  famous  “Compromise”  or 
“Omnibus”  bill,  which  provided  for  the  admission  of 
California  as  a  free  state,  the  organization  of  terri¬ 
torial  governments  (without  mention  of  slavery)  in 
Deseret  (Utah)  and  New  Mexico,  the  compensation 
of  Texas  for  lands  surrendered  to  the  latter,  and  the 
passage  of  a  more  stringent  fugitive  slave  law.  Most 
of  the  Whigs  and  conservative  Democrats  came  even¬ 
tually  to  support  this  formula,  although  Berrien  of 
Georgia,  as  a  southern-rights  Whig,  opposed  it  on  the 
ground  that  it  did  not  offer  enough  to  the  South.  He 
called  the  attention  of  the  Senate  to  the  pending  reso¬ 
lution  in  the  Georgia  legislature  relating  to  the  admis¬ 
sion  of  California  and  warned  his  colleagues  that  his 
state  would  soon  “take  a  tone  much  higher”  in  defence 
of  southern  rights.54 

Proposals  similar  to  those  introduced  by  Clay  were 
in  due  time  made  in  the  House  and  received  there  the 
support  of  the  same  conservative  elements  in  both  par¬ 
ties  that  upheld  them  in  the  Senate.  Cobb  and  Hack- 
ett,  of  Georgia,  naturally  welcomed  the  proposal  of  a 
general  solution,  although  Haralson  and  Wellborn 
opposed  it.  Toombs,  despite  his  fierce  oratory,  and 
Stephens,  despite  his  pessimism  concerning  the  out¬ 
come  of  the  whole  issue,55  displayed  a  willingness  to 

54  Philadelphia  North  American,  February  13,  1850. 

55  Stephens’  attitude  in  December  and  January  was,  in  some  ways, 
more  extreme  than  that  of  Toombs.  He  despaired  of  the  preservation 
of  the  Union,  and  decided  that  secession  was  inevitable,  sooner  or  later. 
Nevertheless,  he  refused  to  hasten  the  issue  after  the  manner  of  Calhoun, 
Rhett,  Benning,  et.  al.  He  gave  as  his  reason  for  not  doing  so  the  fear 
that  the  radicals  in  Georgia,  e.g.,  while  capable  of  starting  a  revolution. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


241 


accept  the  compromise  plan.  As  late  as  the  middle  of 
February,  Stephens  organized  in  the  House  a  series 
of  filibusters  which  prevented  the  separate  admission 
of  California  as  a  free-state,  but  he  was  already  pre¬ 
pared  to  vote  for  its  admission,  provided  this  was 
coupled  with  other  schemes  of  compromise  he  favored. 
For  this  reason,  he  condemned  the  California  resolu¬ 
tion  then  pending  in  the  Georgia  legislature,  since  that 
resolution  made  no  allowance  for  any  general  compro¬ 
mise  to  which  the  admission  of  California  might  be 
attached.56 

The  prospects  for  compromise  improved  as  the 
winter  drew  to  a  close.  Progress  on  Clay’s  plan  was 
slow  because  of  administrative  opposition  and  the 
necessity  for  considering  other  proposed  plans  of  com¬ 
promise,  plans  such  as  that  offered  by  Bell,  of  Tenn¬ 
essee,  which  focused  attention  on  Texas  rather  than 
California.  But  early  in  March  a  series  of  great 
speeches  in  the  Senate  culminated  in  Calhoun’s  final 
appeal  for  northern  justice  and  southern  solidarity 
and  in  Webster’s  great  appeal  for  the  Union. 
Webster’s  “Seventh  of  March  Speech”  seemed  to  as¬ 
sure  southern  “moderadoes”  of  the  support  of  north¬ 
ern  conservatives  and  was  therefore  the  most  encour¬ 
aging  sign  of  compromise  which  had  yet  been  dis¬ 
played.57  The  death  of  Calhoun,  coming  a  few  days 

were  not  capable  of  building  up  a  good  government.  See  A.  H.  Stephens 
to  Linton  Stephens,  January  IS,  February  10,  1850,  in  Johnston  and 
Browne,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  pp.  244,  245,  247 ;  see  also  p.  265.  Cf. 
Pendleton,  Alexander  H.  Stephens ,  pp.  95-99. 

“A.  H.  Stephens  to  Linton  Stephens,  February  20,  1850,  Johnston 
and  Browne,  op.  cit.,  p.  250 ;  A.  H.  Stephens,  War  Between  the  States, 
II.  201-205,  232. 

"  See  H.  D.  Foster,  “Webster’s  Seventh  of  March  Speech,  and  the 
Secession  Movement,  1850,”  American  Historical  Review,  XXVII. 
255-264.  For  Bell’s  compromise  plan  and  comment  thereon  by  the 
Georgia  Congressmen,  see  Sioussat,  “Tennessee,  the  Compromise  of 
1850,  and  the  Nashville  Convention,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical 
Review,  II.  324-327. 


242 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


later,  softened  to  some  extent  the  asperities  of  per¬ 
sonal  feeling  which  had  been  so  aroused  in  the  course 
of  the  debates.  As  the  spring  progressed  the  hopes  of 
the  conservatives  continued  to  rise. 

It  remained  to  be  seen  what  effect  the  congres¬ 
sional  debates,  and  concomitant  developments  in  the 
legislatures  of  the  southern  states,  would  have  upon 
the  country  at  large.  In  the  North  the  press  displayed 
increasing  apprehension  of  a  real  secession  move¬ 
ment,58  though  as  late  as  February  4  one  northern 
observer  complacently  remarked  that  “Disunion,  as  a 
remedy  now  for  any  governmental  evil,  has  never  en¬ 
tered  the  minds  of  one  half-dozen  sane  persons  in  the 
United  States.”59  The  tactics  of  “the  Terrible  Toombs” 
particularly  alarmed  the  northern  conservatives,  and 
brought  down  upon  his  head  and  that  of  Stephens 
the  most  bitter  condemnation.60  As  a  result  of  just 
such  alarm  as  the  Georgians  inspired,  the  northern 
moderates  became  aroused  to  the  danger  of  the  situ¬ 
ation  and  expressed  themselves  in  a  number  of  great 
“Union  Meetings,”  which  did  much  to  reassure  the 
conservatives  of  the  South.  Curiously  enough,  the 
chief  northern  editor  who  did  not  condemn  Toombs 
was  the  extreme  abolitionist,  Garrison,  who  welcomed 
the  Georgian’s  warnings  as  indications  that  bloodshed 
and  civil  war  would  soon  begin  at  the  capitol.61 

68  New  York  Herald,  January  21 ;  Washington  Daily  Union,  January 
23;  Philadelphia  Bulletin,  February  1,  etc. 

59  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  February  4,  1850 ;  see  also  Philadelphia 
North  American,  December  5,  1849;  Columbus  Ohio  Statesman,  March 
1,  1850. 

00  Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,  March  27 ;  Columbus  Ohio  State  Journal, 
July  20,  1850;  Philadelphia  North  American,  December  15,  1849.  The 
Boston  Courier  termed  Toombs  and  Stephens  “swaggering  Boabdils — 
mere  bluffers,”  and  observed  kindly  that  the  “gasconading  of  such  empty 
headed  brawlers  is  equalled  only  by  their  poltroonery  when  danger  is  at 
hand.”  (Courier,  January  2,  1850).  Cf.  Benjamin  Brawley,  A  Social 
History  of  the  American  Negro,  p.  128. 

61  Boston  Liberator,  December  11,  21,  1849,  March  29,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


243 


The  southern  Whig  press,  outside  of  Georgia, 
tended  to  condemn  the  Georgia  Whigs  for  deserting 
their  party,  though  such  criticism  was  not  so  severe  as 
that  voiced  in  the  North.62  Only  in  Georgia  did  the 
Whigs  tend  to  support  Toombs  and  Stephens;63  but 
here,  as  elsewhere  in  the  South,  the  southern-rights 
Democrats  rallied  to  them  as  new  converts  to  the 
Cause.64 

Press  opinion  in  the  North  was  unfavorable  to 
the  Georgia  legislature  for  the  same  reasons  that  it 
was  unfavorable  to  the  Georgia  congressmen.  The 
radical  bills  and  resolutions  debated  by  the  legislature 
were  regarded  by  some  of  the  northern  Democratic 
journals  as  so  many  serious  warnings  to  the  North. 
The  resolution  calling  upon  Georgia  congressmen  to 
leave  Washington  in  case  the  Proviso  passed  was 
viewed  by  the  New  York  Herald  as  an  indication  of 
what  all  southern  congressmen  would  do  in  such  an 
emergency.65  Northern  Whig  papers,  however,  con¬ 
sidered  the  legislature  violent  and  unrepresentative 
of  the  mass  of  the  Georgia  people.  It  was  accused  of 
planning  secession  in  case  California  was  admitted.66 
The  retaliatory  bill  providing  for  the  taxation  of 
northern  goods  was  ridiculed  with  some  bitterness. 
This  measure  had  included,  when  introduced,  not  only 
a  tax  of  fifty  per  cent,  on  all  such  goods  sold  in  Geor¬ 
gia,  but  also  provisions  that  no  Georgia  taxpayer  should 
spend  more  than  fifteen  days  in  the  North  in  any  one 

62  Washington  (N.  C.)  Whig,  December  12,  1849,  in  Washington  (D. 
C.)  Republican,  January  11,  1850;  Mobile  Daily  Advertiser,  January  1, 
1850;  New  Orleans  Bulletin,  in  Augusta  Chronicle,  December  25,  1849, 
etc. 

63  Columbus  Enquirer,  December  12 ;  Augusta  Chronicle,  December  8, 
11,  20,  1849,  etc. 

64  Georgian,  December  20;  Federal  Union,  December  18,  1849. 

06  New  York  Herald,  January  9,  1850. 

6,1  Boston  Courier,  January  2,  1850;  Philadelphia  North  American, 
February  21,  1850. 


244 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


year67  and  that  Georgia  lawyers  must  not  defend  free- 
state  men  in  the  state  courts.68  It  was,  therefore,  a 
general  “non-intercourse”  bill.  The  comment  of  the 
Boston  Courier  was  not  such  as  to  improve  feeling  in 
Georgia.  This  bill,  it  declared : 

was  a  remedy  that  would  carry  away  the  patient.  How  Geor¬ 
gians  will  enjoy  paying  more  than  any  one  else  for  manufac¬ 
tured  goods.  Then,  too,  it  will  help  Georgia  credit  so  much 
in  the  North!  As  for  not  spending  more  than  15  days  in  the 
North,  what  Georgian  would  want  to  go  so  many  miles  away 
from  mosquitoes  and  yellow  fever,  when  there  is  so  much  tax¬ 
ation  and  hard  labor  at  home?  Yea,  let  Georgia  pass  her  law, 
build  a  Chinese  Wall  and  discover  which  end  of  the  Union  it 
will  hurt  the  most  !69 

Within  Georgia  the  Democratic  press,  save  for  one 
or  two  papers  in  Upper  Georgia,  such  as  the  Athens 
Banner,  generally  supported  the  southern-rights  ma¬ 
jority  in  the  legislature.  California,  it  was  agreed 
must  not  be  admitted,  and  all  good  southerners  should 
join  the  Democrats  in  this  struggle.'0  The  attitude 
of  the  Georgia  Whig  press  towards  the  legislature, 
on  the  other  hand,  generally  reflected  that  of  the  con¬ 
servative  Whig  members  of  that  body.  The  first  seven 
of  the  ten  resolutions  were  approved,  but  there  was  im¬ 
mediate  and  indignant  disapproval  of  the  California 
clauses  in  the  eighth  resolution  and  in  the  state  con¬ 
vention  bill. 

The  attitude  of  the  Whig  press  underwent  an  inter¬ 
esting  evolution  during  the  course  of  the  winter.  As 
late  as  the  beginning  of  December,  the  conservative 
Chronicle,  it  will  be  recalled,  had  claimed  that  no  crisis 
was  at  hand  and  that  excitement  was  dangerous  and 

67  Probably  an  expression  of  Democratic  resentment  against  the  cus¬ 
tom  of  wealthy  Whigs,  of  spending  the  summer  in  the  North. 

68  Boston  Courier,  December  28,  1849. 

88  Ibid. 

70  Federal  Union,  November  27;  Georgian,  December  27,  1849. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


245 


uncalled  for.  By  the  end  of  the  month,  however, 
events  in  Congress  seem  to  have  convinced  even  this 
journal  that  the  House  might  be  determined  to  pass 
the  Proviso.  This  was  the  signal  for  a  potential  unity 
against  the  measure  that  was  impressive.  When  even 
the  Chronicle  admitted  that  the  country  might  be  “on 
the  eve  of  a  great  political  convulsion  and  funds  may 
be  necessary  to  protect  our  honor  and  our  interests,’’71 
it  was  certain  that  all  Georgia,  save  perhaps  some 
mountain  districts  in  Cherokee,  was  ready  for  final 
resistance  to  the  Proviso.  At  the  same  time  that  the 
Whig  papers  took  decided  ground  for  final  resistance 
to  the  Proviso,  they  displayed  a  consistent  desire  for 
any  possible  adjustment  that  was  not  dishonorable  to 
the  South.  Because  of  this  general  attitude,  the  Whig 
editors  seized  with  avidity  upon  any  sign  that  the  sec¬ 
tional  struggle  could  be  adjusted.  They  continued  not 
only  to  approve  Taylor’s  statehood  plan  but  to  believe 
that  he  would  veto  the  Proviso  if  it  reached  him.72 
Reports  began  to  reach  Georgia  as  early  as  the  first 
week  in  February  that  Congress  would  probably  pass  a 
compromise  measure.  The  Chronicle  was  able  by  that 
time  to  observe  quite  cheerfully  that  “the  essential 
differences  between  the  North  and  the  South  are  so 
slight  in  view  of  ultimate  consequences  .  .  .  that  time 
and  the  natural  course  of  events  are  rapidly  settling 
the  whole  question.”73  In  all  these  opinions,  the  op¬ 
timistic  conservatism  of  the  Georgia  Whig  editors  was 
in  marked  contrast  to  the  pessimistic  excitement  dis¬ 
played  at  Washington  by  the  Georgia  Whig  congress¬ 
men. 

71  Chronicle,  December  28,  1849. 

™News,  January  22,  1850. 

73  Chronicle,  February  9,  1850. 


24 6 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  reaction  of  the  Whig  papers  to  Clay’s  “Com¬ 
promise,”  and  to  Webster’s  conciliatory  “Seventh  of 
March  Speech,”  was  prompt  and  enthusiastic.  Dr. 
Daniel  Lee,  editor  of  the  Chronicle,  left  Augusta  for 
Washington  in  mid-January  to  report  directly  upon 
congressional  developments,  and  his  wire  praising 
Clay’s  Omnibus  scheme  was  the  first  news  thereon  to 
reach  Georgia.74  When  Webster’s  speech  was  re¬ 
ported,  the  Chronicle  could  not  find  words  to  express 
its  “high  gratification.”  The  Proviso  was  now  cer¬ 
tainly  dead.  Calhoun’s  speech  urging  a  dual  executive 
scheme  to  protect  the  South,  on  the  other  hand,  was 
immediately  condemned  as  “impracticable.”75  “Great 
Lhiion  Meetings”  in  New  York  and  Philadelphia  also 
offered  assurance  of  the  desire  of  northern  conserva¬ 
tives  for  compromise,  and  such  assurance  was  perhaps 
more  potent  than  the  speech  of  any  one  man,  even 
though  that  man  was  Webster.76 

The  southern-rights  papers,  as  would  be  expected, 
praised  Calhoun’s  last  great  speech  and  continued  to 
deny  that  he  was  a  disunionist.  Calhoun,  the  Federal 
Union  observed,  loved  the  Union,  but  “saw  further 
into  the  future”  than  did  the  southern  conservatives, 
a  verdict  with  which  posterity  would  probably  agree.77 
Webster’s  speech  also  received  some  moderate  praise, 
but  the  Clay  Omnibus  plan  was  immediately  and  em¬ 
phatically  condemned.  It  “yielded  nothing  to  the 
South”  and  was  therefore  “insulting”  and  “no  com- 

u  Chronicle,  January  30;  Republican,  February  1,  1850. 

,5  Chronicle,  March  9,  12;  Columbus  Enquirer,  March  12;  Republican, 
March  9,  1850. 

78  Cobb  later  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  northern  “Union  Meet¬ 
ings”  were  the  most  potent  factor  in  giving  the  Georgia  conservatives 
the  necessary  assurances  early  in  the  controversy;  see  Washington  Union, 
December  19,  1850. 

77  Federal  Union,  March  19,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


247 


promise.”78  The  opinions  of  the  New  York  Sun  and 
London  Times,  to  the  effect  that  the  final  destruction 
of  slavery  was  inherent  in  the  plan,  were  quoted  with 
approval.  If  the  South  accepted  a  “Compromise”  in 
which  she  made  all  the  concessions,  it  would  be  but 
another  step  to  the  “final  concession.”79  The  north¬ 
ern  “Union  Meetings”  were  hailed  as  encouraging 
signs,  indicative  of  southern  wrongs  and  southern 
earnestness,  but  they  were  no  excuse  for  accepting 
the  humiliating  Omnibus  plan.  Indeed,  these  very 
meetings  offered  evidence  of  the  effectiveness  of  the 
strong  southern  protest,  which  must  not  be  abandoned 
as  soon  as  it  began  to  prove  of  value.  If  even  the 
Yankees  were  beginning  to  appreciate  southern  claims, 
then  “palsied  be  the  tongue  within  her  borders  that 
would  stifle  her  complaints.”80  The  knowledge  that 
Toombs  and  Stephens  would  probably  accept  the  Omni¬ 
bus,  first  suggested  in  Toombs’  letter  of  March  11  to 
Governor  Towns,  was  therefore  a  shock  and  a  disap¬ 
pointment  to  the  southern-rights  journals.  The  Au¬ 
gusta  Constitutionalist  immediately  condemned 
Toombs  as  a  hypocrite,  who  was  “blowing  hot  and 
by  claiming  that  it  was  poorly  attended.86 

In  its  confidence,  expressed  early  in  February, 
that  the  difficulties  between  the  North  and  the  South 
could  be  adjusted  nicely  within  the  Union,  the  Chron¬ 
icle  had  depended  upon  “an  abiding  faith  in  the  com¬ 
mon  sense  of  the  Georgia  people.”  This  was  another 
way  of  expressing  a  belief  in  the  conservatism  and 
union-loving  qualities  of  these  people.  After  all,  it 

w  Federal  Union,  February  5;  Georgian,  February  5,  1850. 

’"‘News,  February  8,  1850. 

80  Federal  Union,  March  5,  1850. 

81  Constitutionalist,  in  the  Federal  Union,  March  26,  1850.  For 
Toombs’  letter,  which  was  in  reply  to  Towns’  transmission  of  the  Legis¬ 
lature’s  resolutions,  see  the  National  Intelligencer,  March  26,  1850. 


248 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


was  not  what  editors  and  politicians  thought,  but  what 
the  masses  thought,  which  would  finally  determine 
whether  Georgia  would  accept  an  adjustment  or 
whether  she  would  take  extreme  measures.  It  is  essen¬ 
tial,  then,  to  consider  the  real  state  of  public  opinion  in 
the  state  during  the  winter  of  1850.  The  phenomena 
to  be  considered  are  the  county  meetings,  the  estimates 
made  by  contemporary  editors  and  other  observers,  one 
special  election  held  in  Georgia  late  in  February,  and, 
most  important  of  all,  the  Nashville  convention  elec¬ 
tions. 

Late  in  December,  several  county  meetings,  some 
Whig  and  some  non-partisan,  were  held,  chiefly  in  the 
coastal  counties  of  Glynn  and  McIntosh.  These  were 
called  in  order  to  support  the  stand  taken  by  Toombs 
and  Stephens  in  Congress  and  to  demand  final  resis¬ 
tance  to  the  Proviso  should  it  pass.  The  Chronicle 
opposed  such  meetings,  but  the  Republican  praised 
them  as  a  sign  that  both  parties  were  united  for  ulti¬ 
mate  resistance  to  that  measure.82 

After  the  December  excitement  in  Congress  had 
passed,  the  press  dispatches  being  less  alarming  for 
the  moment,  there  seem  to  have  been  few  or  no 
county  meetings  in  January.  The  people  were  either 
indifferent  or  were  waiting  to  see  what  Congress 
and  the  legislature  would  do.  Early  in  February, 
after  the  eighth  resolution  had  passed  in  the  latter 
body  and  Clay’s  compromise  had  been  introduced 
at  Washington,  efforts  were  made  to  get  up  southern- 
rights  meetings  in  Bibb  and  Monroe  Counties  in  Cen¬ 
tral  Georgia.  These  were  intended  to  praise  the  ten 
resolutions  and  to  condemn  the  “Compromise.”  The 
Chronicle  claimed  that  both  of  the  attempted  meetings 
were  failures.  The  evidence  that  the  Monroe  meet- 


82  Republican,  January  17,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


249 


ing  proved  a  fiasco  is  indeed  clear ;  it  was  so  admitted, 
even  by  the  radical  papers.  The  Forsyth  Bee 83  gave 
the  following  account  of  the  situation  in  the  heart  of 
Central  Georgia  in  February: 

With  shame  and  mortification  we  have  to  record  the  humi¬ 
liating  fact  that  the  Southern  meeting  advertised  to  come  off 
yesterday  turned  out  to  be  an  entire  failure.  No  interest  was 
manifested  by  any  one.  When  we  take  into  consideration  the 
vast  interests  at  stake  ...  we  are  overwhelmed  with 
astonishment  at  the  apathy  and  indifference  manifested  by  the 
good  citizens  of  Monroe.  .  .  .  Is  it  because  they  are  want¬ 

ing  in  patriotism? — we  hope  not.  Is  it  because  they  are  recreant 
to  their  own  interests?  But  talk  will  do  no  good.  We  have 
tried  it  and  are  heartily  sick  of  it.  ‘Ephraim  is  joined  to  his 
idols.’84 

This  popular  indifference  to  southern-rights  appeals 
in  Monroe  must  have  characterized  the  men  of  both 
parties,  for  Monroe  had  only  a  very  slight  majority  of 
Whig  voters85  and  was  surrounded  on  three  sides 
by  the  tier  of  Democratic  counties  that  ran  athwart 
Central  Georgia. 

Early  in  March  interest  in  public  meetings  was 
transferred  to  Upper  Georgia.  On  March  5  a  gen¬ 
eral  non-partisan  meeting  of  conservatives  was  held 
at  Cassville,  Cass  County,  which  adopted  resolutions 
condemning  the  Nashville  convention  and  the  proposed 
state  convention.  These  resolutions  asserted  the  right 
of  California  to  admission  and  expressed  a  “strong 
attachment”  to  the  Union.  “We  pledge  ourselves,” 
they  continued,  “to  support  the  President  in  using  all 
constitutional  means  in  his  power  to  protect  it  from 


83  An  independent  journal  of  southern-rights  sympathies. 

81  Forsythe  Bee,  February  6,  in  National  Intelligencer ,  February  23, 
1850. 

85  In  the  gubernatorial  election  of  1847  (the  last  one  in  Georgia 
largely  unaffected  by  national  issues)  Monroe  gave  670  Democratic  and 
688  Whig  votes;  Georgian,  October  13,  1848. 


250 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


violence  for  any  cause  now  known  to  us.”  This  meet¬ 
ing  attracted  wide  attention  in  the  North,  where  the 
Whig  papers  viewed  it  as  a  sign  of  Georgia  conser¬ 
vatism.  Some  Democratic  editors  decried  it,  however, 
by  claiming  that  it  was  poorly  attended.86 

Further  evidence  of  strong  Union  feeling  among 
both  parties  in  Upper  Georgia  was  afforded  early  in 
March  by  a  pronunciamento  from  the  grand  jury  of 
the  superior  court  in  Gwinnet  County,  in  the  Cherokee 
Circuit,  which  expressed  an  “abhorrence”  of  the  idea 
of  disunion  and  exhorted  all  “not  to  give  up  the  ship 
of  state.”87  A  correspondent  of  Cobb  in  Upper  Geor¬ 
gia  wrote  him  March  10  that  the  whole  slavery  contro¬ 
versy  had  been  “perhaps  less  anxiously  watched”  in 
that  section  of  the  state  than  elsewhere.88  The  Ma¬ 
rietta  Helicon  listed  counties  which  it  was  already 
sure  were  certain  to  oppose  disunion.89 

To  cap  the  climax,  reports  began  to  come  down 
state  that  political  leaders  in  the  hill  counties  were  tell¬ 
ing  the  people  there  that,  as  non-slaveholders,  they 
had  no  interest  in  the  general  slavery  controversy. 
Such  speakers  declared  that  if  the  southern-rights  men 
brought  on  a  conflict  with  the  North,  “they  (the  Up- 
Country  men)  would  have  to  fight  the  battles  of  the 
lordly  slave  owners.”  A  certain  Judge  Wright  was 
particularly  active  along  this  line  in  meetings  at  Dah- 
lonega  and  in  Cumming.  “These  reports,”  declared 
the  Federal  Union  in  some  alarm,  “have  been  coming 
in  for  some  time.”90 

86  Resolutions  printed  in  the  Washington  Republic,  March  14 ;  see 
also  National  Intelligencer,  March  15;  Washington  Union,  March  24, 
Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  March  15,  1850. 

87  Chronicle,  April  5. 

88  G.  D.  Phillips  to  Cobb,  Habersham  County,  March  10,  1850, 
Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  185. 

89  Marietta  Helicon,  in  Mobile  Daily  Advertiser,  April  22,  1850. 

90  Federal  Union,  April  9,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


251 


Such  evidence  convinced  the  Union  Democratic  and 
Whig  press  in  Georgia  that  Cherokee  was  strongly- 
opposed  to  the  southern  movement  in  February  and 
March,  1850,  just  as  it  had  been  during  the  two  pre¬ 
ceding  years.  The  reported  failure  of  the  radical 
meetings  in  Monroe  and  Bibb  led  to  similar  conclu¬ 
sions  with  regard  to  Central  Georgia.  The  Republican 
had  declared  in  the  preceding  November  that  the  peo¬ 
ple  were  tired  and  sick  of  the  slavery  controversy,91 
and  the  Chronicle  repeated  this  with  emphasis  even  in 
February  1850.92  The  Athens  Banner  (Union  Demo¬ 
crat)  agreed  with  the  Chronicle  that  “it  is  an  unde¬ 
niable  fact  that  the  people  of  Georgia  will  not  support 
the  demagogery  of  the  last  Legislature.”93  In  like 
manner,  Whig  papers  outside  the  state  were  of  the 
opinion  that  the  Georgia  congressmen  did  not  repre¬ 
sent  the  masses  of  their  constituents.  “In  Georgia,” 
observed  the  Advertiser  in  April,  “a  conservative 
spirit  is  manifesting  itself  in  spite  of  Toombs  and 
Company .”94 

On  the  other  hand,  there  was  some  evidence  during 
the  winter  of  1849-50  that  the  idea  of  secession,  secret¬ 
ly  supported  for  years  by  extremists,  was  beginning  to 
be  discussed  more  openly  than  ever  before.  The  Griffin 
Whig  was  “pained  to  hear  the  subject  discussed  in  the 
newspapers  and  in  social  circles  with  so  much  earnest¬ 
ness  and  in  such  seeming  indifference  to  its  continu¬ 
ance.”  Nevertheless,  it  considered  this  the  work  of 
some  of  the  “old  nullifyers”  who  had  joined  the  Demo¬ 
crats  in  1840  and  had  been  admitted  to  leadership. 

91  Republican,  November  2,  1849. 

92  Chronicle,  February  3,  1850. 

93  Ibid.,  March  23 ;  see  also  National  Intelligencer,  March  25,  1850. 

94  Mobile  Advertiser,  April  21,  1850,  italics  my  own.  See,  for  simi¬ 
lar  opinions,  the  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  January  24,  February  26; 
Baltimore  American,  January  17,  1850. 


252 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


It  was  not  a  spontaneous  or  popular  movement,  this 
journal  claimed,  even  among  the  Democrats.95 

Few,  if  any,  estimates  of  popular  opinion  in  the 
state  were  made  by  southern-rights  editors  during  the 
winter.  Those  who  did  claim  that  Georgia  was  “ready 
to  peril  everything”  or  “seek  desperate  remedies,”  us¬ 
ually  based  their  opinion  on  developments  in  the  legis¬ 
lature.96  The  South  Carolina  papers  expressed  a  be¬ 
lief  that  Georgia  “was  moving,”  but  this  also  was 
based  upon  the  doings  of  the  legislature.  A  few  indi¬ 
viduals  expressed  qualified  opinions  that  secessionist 
views  were  becoming  popular.  Benning,  the  seces¬ 
sionist,  wrote  Cobb  that  Union  sentiment  in  the  South 
in  general  was  “very  unreliable.”97  G.  D.  Phillips,  of 
Habersham  County,  also  wrote  Cobb  on  March  10 
that  he  personally  was  “for  equality  or  disunion”  and 
that  he  was  sure  that  this  was  the  “predominant  feel¬ 
ing  in  Georgia.”98  The  significance  of  this  statement 
depends,  however,  upon  what  he  meant  by  “equality,” 
which,  so  far  as  can  be  judged  from  the  text  of  his 
letter,  implied  simply  a  demand  for  compromise. 

A  special  election  was  held  late  in  February  in  the 
first  congressional  district  to  choose  a  successor  to  T. 
Butler  King,  the  Whig  representative,  who  had  re¬ 
signed  to  undertake  his  California  mission.  The  result 
of  the  election  reversed  that  of  1848,  the  district  now 

05  Griffin  Whig,  in  National  Intelligencer,  March  23,  24,  1850.  The 
Washington  Union  said  that  these  extracts  from  the  southern  papers 
given  in  the  Intelligencer  “garbled”  the  news,  and  “that  for  one  extract 
it  gives  from  the  hesitating  Southern  press  we  might  present  a  hundred 
of  the  boldest  character.”  (February  19,  1850).  It  did  not  present 
them,  however. 

96  Federal  Union,  February  12 ;  Cf.  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger, 
February  4,  1850. 

97  Benning  to  Cobb.  March  29,  1850,  “Cobb  Papers.”  Georgia  Historical 
Quarterly,  V.  No.  3.  p.  39. 

98  Phillips  to  Cobb,  Toombs.  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence, 
p.  185. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


253 


giving  a  small  majority  to  James  W.  Jackson,  the 
Democratic  candidate,  over  Fleming,  the  Whig." 
This  may  have  indicated,  in  view  of  the  issues  in  Con¬ 
gress  at  the  time  and  subsequent  developments  in 
Lower  Georgia,  some  growth  in  radical  southern- 
rights  feeling  in  this  district. 

Taking  into  consideration  all  the  evidence  that  has 
been  suggested,  it  would  seem  probable  that  the  desire 
for  an  adjustment  of  the  national  issue  was  stronger, 
in  the  minds  of  the  masses  of  Georgia  people,  during 
the  critical  winter  of  1850  than  was  the  desire  for 
secession  or  other  extreme  measures.  Despite  the 
worry  occasioned  among  Whig  leaders  by  the  defection 
of  the  Clay  Whigs  in  1848  and  1849,  there  is  no  reason 
to  believe  that  any  large  group  of  Whigs  wavered  in 
the  desire  for  conciliation  in  1850,  if  this  could  be  had 
without  the  Proviso  and  therefore  with  honor.100  Nor 
were  there  signs  of  wide-spread  secessionist  spirit  in 
Central  Georgia,  even  among  the  masses  of  the  Demo¬ 
crats.  The  evidence  concerning  opinion  in  Central 
Georgia  prior  to  March  is,  to  be  sure,  largely  of  a 
negative  character,  save  for  the  failures  of  southern- 
rights  meetings  noted.  That  is  to  say,  there  being  no 
positive  evidence  of  wide-spread  “extremism”  among 
the  people  of  Central  Georgia  (such  as  had  already 
been  displayed,  for  instance,  by  public  meetings  “in 
many  parts  of  South  Carolina”),101  it  is  probable  that 

90  Washington  Republic,  March  4,  1850. 

100  The  two  to  four  thousand  followers  of  Smythe  and  the  Augusta 
Republic  had  largely  lost  their  identity  as  Whigs  after  going  with  the 
Democrats  in  October,  1849.  Cole  reaches  this  opinion  for  the  mass  of 
the  southern-rights  Whigs  in  general ;  Whig  Party  in  the  South,  p.  162. 

191 C.  S.  Boucher,  “The  Secession  and  Co-Operation  Movements  in 
South  Carolina,  1848-1852,”  Washington  University  Studies,  Humanistic 
Series,  V.  No.  2,  pp.  78,  79.  Cf.  also  the  evidences  of  how  popular 
excitement  did  express  itself  in  Georgia  in  1860,  as  given  in  Phillips, 
Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  196. 


254 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


there  was  no  such  widespread  extremism  in  existence. 
In  Lower  Georgia  alone  was  there  a  suggestion  of  in¬ 
creasing  excitement,  and  this  suggestion  is  not  a  very 
conclusive  one.  In  Upper  Georgia,  on  the  other  hand, 
there  was  evidence  that  the  masses  of  the  Democrats 
as  well  as  the  Whigs  continued  their  traditional  oppo¬ 
sition  to  extremism. 

This  blended  conservatism  and  indifference  of  the 
Georgia  masses  to  the  secession  movement  was  due, 
in  large  part,  to  the  growing  promise  of  the  compro¬ 
mise  movement  at  Washington  and  to  those  influences 
within  the  state  which  made  its  people  so  desirous  of 
accepting  compromise.  A  more  complete  statement  of 
the  nature  of  public  opinion  in  the  state  must  be  post¬ 
poned,  however,  until  the  positive  evidence  of  the 
Nashville  convention  elections  is  considered. 

The  Whig  papers  had  attempted  to  discourage  the 
Nashville  convention  movement,  or  else  had  maintained 
a  discreet  silence  upon  it,  since  the  preceding  Novem¬ 
ber.  The  Chronicle  continued  to  question  whether  it 
would  ever  meet.  When  February  came,  the  Whig 
editors  combined  opposition  to  the  southern  convention 
with  opposition  to  the  state  convention,  and  the  sug¬ 
gestion  was  soon  made  that  the  only  way  to  redeem 
either  affair  was  to  infuse  a  conservative  element  into 
their  respective  membership.10" 

In  the  meantime,  five  of  the  seven  chief  Democra¬ 
tic  papers  in  the  state  had  enthusiastically  welcomed 
the  call  to  the  southern  convention  and  continued  to 
advocate  it  vehemently  through  the  winter.  They  de¬ 
nied  that  it  was  intended  to  plan  immediate  secession, 
but  they  began  to  declare  openly  that  unless  it  forced 

102  Columbus  Enquirer,  April  2;  Chronicle,  November  17,  1849,  Feb¬ 
ruary  9,  April  17,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


255 


real  and  immediate  concessions  from  the  North  it 
would  mean  secession  by  the  South.103 

The  Athens  Banner,  of  course,  did  not  back  the 
convention,  but  it  was  replaced  by  the  erstwhile  Whig 
organ,  the  Augusta  Republic,  which  had  become  one 
of  the  most  militant  of  the  southern-rights  organs. 
Smythe,  its  editor,  supported  the  Nashville  conven¬ 
tion,  announcing  in  the  best  oratorical  style  of  the 
day:  “We  hope  for  the  best,  but  if  driven  to  choose 
between  the  Union  and  dishonor  we  will  look  to  the 
streaks  upon  the  eastern  sky  of  the  South,  which  prom¬ 
ise  her  the  refulgent  sun  of  independence.”104 

The  independent  Savannah  News ,  which  had 
favored  a  southern  convention  during  the  winter, 
admitted  in  March  that  such  a  meeting  might  not  be 
needed.  It  believed,  however,  that  “the  movement 
has  now  gone  so  far  that  honor  requires  it  be  carried 
out.  Even  if  a  Compromise  is  reached  the  Nashville 
Convention  will  be  useful  to  ratify.”105  This  was  the 
only  important  southern-rights  paper  in  the  state  which 
may  be  said  to  have  changed  its  attitude  because  of 
the  compromise  movements  in  Washington. 

While  all  the  radical  papers  mentioned  favored 
both  the  southern  and  the  state  conventions  as  essen¬ 
tial  parts  of  the  one  general  southern  movement,  one 
paper,  the  Columbus  Times,  favored  the  latter  to  the 
exclusion  of  the  former.  This  journal  mildly  opposed 
the  calling  of  a  general  southern  convention  to  redress 
southern  wrongs.  It  explained  that  “We  had  rather 
risk  the  decision  of  our  own  state  .  .  .  than  to  be 
mixed  up  with  others.”106  This  opposition  or  indiff- 

103  Federal  Union,  March  5;  Columbus  Sentinel,  in  National  Intelli¬ 
gencer,  March  19,  April  11;  Georgian,  March  5,  1850. 

104  Augusta  Republic,  in  National  Intelligencer,  March  11,  1850. 

105  Savannah  News,  March  12,  1850. 

106  Columbus  Times,  in  National  Intelligencer,  February  17,  1850. 


256 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


erence  to  the  Nashville  movement  in  favor  of  the 
state  convention,  however,  was  unique  among  the  chief 
southern-rights  papers. 

The  legislature  had  provided,  in  planning  elections 
to  Nashville,  that  preliminary  meetings  were  to  be 
held  in  each  county  early  in  March  to  choose  delegates 
to  congressional  district  conventions.  These,  in  turn,, 
were  to  nominate  one  or  more  candidates  from  each 
party.  Then,  on  April  3,  the  voters  in  each  county 
would  vote  for  two  of  these  nominees  to  represent  their 
district  at  Nashville,  one  from  each  party.  Meanwhile,, 
the  legislature  was  to  choose  two  delegates-at-large. 
As  the  time  for  the  preliminary  March  meetings  ap¬ 
proached,  the  southern-rights  papers  appealed  to  the 
people  to  make  certain  that  the  counties  send  repre¬ 
sentatives  to  the  district  meetings. 

When  the  time  came,  very  few  county  meetings, 
were  held.  The  Savannah  Republican  claimed  that 
not  more  than  a  dozen  were  held  and  that  not  more 
than  one  thousand  voters  out  of  some  ninety-five  thous¬ 
and  participated.  In  most  counties,  so  few  men  ap¬ 
peared  that  no  delegates  were  sent  to  the  district  con¬ 
ventions.107  The  Athens  Banner  gave  a  realistic  ac¬ 
count  of  an  attempt  to  “get  up”  a  town  meeting.  “At 
3  P.  M.  on  Saturday  last,”  it  said,  “was  the  hour  and 
the  day  appointed  for  a  meeting  of  the  Democratic 
party  of  this  city  at  the  Town  hall  .  .  .  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  sending  delegates  to  a  district  convention  .  .  . 
There  seemed  to  be  not  the  least  interest  manifested. 
On  arriving  at  the  Town  Hall  we  found  some  half 
dozen  present,  and  in  about  fifteen  minutes  a  few  more 
entered,  making  a  total  of  sixteen.  The  town  bell  was 
rung  by  the  marshall,  but  all  in  vain.  The  People 
Would  Not  Come  and  those  present  broke  up  without 


101  Republican,  March  23,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


257 


action.”108  Such  was  the  character  of  some  of  the 
few  preliminary  meetings  held.  Nevertheless,  the  dis¬ 
trict  meetings  were  held  towards  the  end  of  the  month 
and  nominees  named  for  each  of  the  eight  districts. 
Needless  to  say,  these  district  conventions  were  not 
representative  affairs. 

The  real  test  of  popular  sentiment  towards  the 
Nashville  Convention  was  to  be  made  on  April  3, 
when  the  people  voted  for  the  nominees.  A  final 
appeal  was  made  by  the  southern-rights  papers  for  a 
large  vote.  “All  Georgians,”  urged  the  Macon  Tele¬ 
graph i,  “should  rally  around  the  citadel  of  the  South” 
by  casting  their  votes  for  the  candidates.109 

The  result  of  the  April  election  was  startling,  even 
to  those  who  had  partially  anticipated  it.  After  all 
the  months  of  preparation,  after  all  the  struggles  in 
the  legislature,  and  after  all  the  fan  fares  of  southern- 
rights  trumpets  to  announce  its  coming,  the  southern 
convention  election  simply  did  not  arrive!  It  was  a 
complete  and  dismal  failure  for  the  plain  reason  that 
the  great  masses  of  both  parties  ignored  it.  A  con¬ 
servative  estimate,  based  upon  the  press  figures  for 
the  different  counties,  would  place  the  total  number  of 
votes  cast  in  the  state  at  about  two  thousand  five  hun¬ 
dred  out  of  a  total  voting  population  of  about  ninety- 
five  thousand.  Many  counties  held  no  election  what¬ 
ever.110  In  some  cases  the  voters  proceeded  on  their 
own  initiative  to  vote  such  strange  yet  significant 
tickets  as  “No  Convention,”  or  “No  Disunion.”  The 
vote  in  Columbus,  for  instance,  was  listed  as  follows : 

108  Athens  Banner,  in  National  Intelligencer,  March  28,  1850. 

109  Macon  Telegraph,  in  National  Intelligencer,  April  11,  1850. 

Banner,  there  were  7  which  had  not  even  opened  the  polls ;  see  National 

110  Of  the  first  25  counties  listed  in  the  returns  published  by  the  Athens 
Intelligencer,  April  17,  1850. 


258 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


For  candidates .  113 

“No  Convention” .  98 

“No  Disunion”  .  78 


The  normal  vote  of  Muscogee  County,  wherein  Co¬ 
lumbus  was  located,  was  about  one  thousand  nine  hun¬ 
dred.111 

A  noticeable  feature  of  the  returns  was  the  fact 
that  the  insignificance  of  the  vote  cast  was  due  almost, 
if  not  quite,  as  much  to  Democratic  as  to  Whig  in¬ 
difference.112  The  vote  in  Coastal  Georgia,  both  in 
Chatham  (Savannah)  and  other  counties,  was  pro¬ 
portionately  higher  than  in  the  other  sections,  and 
these  were  Whig  counties. 

The  Whig  and  Union  Democratic  press  was  filled 
for  the  next  week  with  ironical  accounts  and  com¬ 
ments  upon  the  indifference  displayed  towards  the 
convention.  The  election  was  a  “farce,”  a  “flash  in  the 
pan,”  an  “abortion” — and  such  other  phrases  as  came 
to  the  heads  of  triumphant  and  metaphorically- 

111  A  few  county  votes  may  be  noted,  which  are  illustrative  of  results 
in  the  several  sections  of  the  state;  for  complete  figures  see  National 
Intelligencer,  April  17,  1850.  It  may  be  noted  that  the  vote  in  Coastal 
Georgia  was  proportionately  higher  than  in  the  other  sections. 


Votes  Cast 

Normal  Vote 

Usual 

Majority  Party 

Upper  Georgia 

Floyd  . 

53 

1,300 

Dem. 

Lumpkin . 

27 

1,500 

Dem. 

Paulding . 

no  polls 

Dem. 

Central  Georgia 

Jasper  . 

89 

1,000 

Dem. 

Hancock  . 

42 

800 

Whig 

Pike  . 

29 

500 

Whig 

Troup  . 

14 

1,500 

Whig 

Oglethorpe  . 

no  polls 

Whig 

Coastal  Georgia 

Chatham  (Savannah) 

439 

1,400 

Whig 

McIntosh  . 

43 

165 

Whig 

Pine  Barrens 

Emanuel  . 

no  polls 

Dem. 

Effingham . 

18 

260 

Whig 

lu  Cf.  Cole,  Whig  Party  in  the  South, 

p.  170. 

WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


259 


minded  editors.  The  southern-rights  press  was  goaded 
with  ironical  comment  and  inquiry.  “The  mountain 
labored  and  brought  forth  a  mouse,”  observed  the 
Griffin  Whig.  “The  whole  affair  fell  still-born,”  com¬ 
mented  the  Washington  Gazette.  “We  were  told  by 
people  abroad,”  said  the  Cassville  Standard ,  “that 
there  has  been  more  excitement  in  this  county  (Cass) 
than  in  any  other  part  of  the  state.  Yet  2,000  of  our 
2,300  voters  staid  at  home  and  let  the  golden  calf  of 
the  new-light  have  its  tinsel  rubbed  off !  Oh,  naughty 
people  !”113  The  Chronicle  demanded  that  the  Charles¬ 
ton  Mercury,  which  had  declared  “Georgia  is  moving,” 
should  “now  inform  its  readers  which  way  she  has 
moved.”  The  Nashville  convention,  all  agreed,  was 
now  a  dead  affair  in  Georgia,  and  it  was  doubtful  if 
the  state  would  be  represented  therein.114 

The  reaction  of  the  southern-rights  press  was  va¬ 
ried.  Several  papers  frankly  recognized  that  the  peo¬ 
ple  had  defeated  the  whole  convention  movement  and 
that  the  vote  indicated  indifference  or  opposition  to 
the  southern  movement.  “We  could  weep  over  the 
divisions  in  the  South  if  it  would  do  any  good,”  ex¬ 
claimed  the  Augusta  Republic  in  considering  the  fail¬ 
ures  of  the  preliminary  meetings.115  The  Savannah 
News,  silent  for  some  weeks  after  the  elections,  finally 
admitted  that  the  elections  were  “humiliating”  and 
marvelled  at  the  “strange  apathy  of  the  Georgia  peo¬ 
ple.”  It  came  to  feel  that  the  southern  convention 
should  never  be  held  if  it  was  to  be  unrepresentative.116 

113  Chronicle,  April  11,  1850. 

114  For  these  and  other  quotations  from  the  Georgia  press,  see  the 
National  Intelligencer,  March  29,  April  4,  7,  11,  13  and  18;  the  Wash¬ 
ington  Republic,  April  15,  and  16,  1850.  The  Washington  Union  again 
claimed  that  the  Intelligencer  was  “garbeling”  the  Georgia  press,  but 
cited  no  evidence.  {Union,  April  7.) 

115  Augusta  Republic,  in  National  Intelligencer,  March  29,  1850. 

116  News,  May  20,  June  13,  1850. 


260 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


In  like  manner,  the  Constitutionalist  frankly  admitted 
that  “the  meager  vote  given  for  delegates  ...  is  a 
virtual  defeat  of  the  Southern  Convention  movement 
in  Georgia.  So  far  as  this  state  is  concerned,  we  look 
upon  it  as  dead  and  buried.”117  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Charleston  Mercury  denied  that  the  election  had 
much  significance,118  and  the  Georgian  retorted  hotly 
to  enemy  taunts,  appealing  to  its  co-workers  to  carry 
on  for  the  Cause.119 

The  fact  that  the  southern-rights  press  had  failed 
to  represent  and  had  been  entirely  out  of  touch  with 
popular  opinion  was  very  obvious.  The  explanation 
of  the  results  made  by  these  editors  is  interesting. 
Some  said,  for  example  the  News,  that  the  results 
were  due  to  the  inexplicable  and  incredible  “apathy” 
of  the  people.  The  Federal  Union,  however,  admitted 
on  the  morning  of  the  election  that  the  vote  would  be 
light  because  of  the  following  factors :  ( 1 )  the  con¬ 
tinued  faith  of  some  Whigs  in  President  Taylor  and 
hope  for  his  favor;  (2)  the  mistaken  fear  in  both 
parties  that  the  convention  was  a  secessionist  move; 
and  (3)  a  belief  that  an  adjustment  could  be  reached 
in  Congress.  A  week  after  the  election,  it  made  the 
added  discovery  that  (4)  the  lack  of  opposition  be¬ 
tween  the  candidates  deprived  the  election  of  interest 
and  therefore  lessened  the  number  of  votes  cast.120 

The  only  other  factor  suggested  by  journals  of  this 
group  at  the  time  of  the  election  was  that  stated  by 
the  Montgomery  (Alabama)  Atlas,  which  blamed  the 
defeat  in  Georgia  upon  “the  indifference  of  the  ignor¬ 
ant  mass,  who  are  illiterate  or  take  no  papers.  Many 
did  not  know  there  was  to  be  a  Nashville  Conven- 

m  Constitutionalist,  in  National  Intelligencer,  April  18. 

u8  Charleston  Mercury,  April  13,  1850. 

119  Georgian,  April  13,  1850. 

120  Federal  Union,  April  2,  9,  1850. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


261 


lion.”121  There  was  probably  some  truth  in  the  belief 
that  many  Democrats  who  did  not  take  the  papers 
were,  for  this  reason,  out  off  touch  with  the  pro-cor^,- 
vention  propaganda  and  consequently  indifferent  to  it. 
A  farmer  in  Forsyth  County,  for  instance,  who  wrote 
that  people  there  did  not  “take  the  papers,”  remarked 
that  they  “could  not  see  that  Congress  had  yet  done 
anything  against  them,  and  until  it  did  they  would 
behave  themselves.”  “We  hope,”  he  concluded  ironi¬ 
cally,  “that  our  city  editors,  who  know  everything 
about  ‘Southern  Rights,’  and  all  that,  will  inform  us 
what  the  correct  doctrine  is.”122 

The  conservative  press  interpreted  the  popular  in¬ 
difference  to  the  election  as  being  due  primarily  to  “a 
general  conviction  that  the  irritating  questions  will  be 
settled  satisfactorily  at  the  present  session  of  Con¬ 
gress.”  As  a  secondary  cause,  they  mentioned  the  be¬ 
lief  that  in  any  case  the  Nashville  meeting  would  be  too 
unrepresentative  of  the  South  to  function  successfully 
as  a  southern  convention. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  none  of  the  chief 
papers,  not  even  the  southern-rights  journals,  sug¬ 
gested  until  some  time  after  the  election  that  the  people 
might  have  ignored  Nashville  because  their  interest 
had  been  drawn  exclusively  to  the  state  convention 
project.123  This  silence,  combined  with  the  fact  that, 
prior  to  the  election,  the  southern-rights  papers  asso¬ 
ciated  the  state  and  the  Nashville  conventions  together 
as  two  great  phases  of  the  same  southern  movement, 
would  seem  to  indicate  that  the  repudiation  of  the 
Nashville  convention  was,  at  least  to  a  large  extent,  a 
repudiation  of  the  southern  movement  in  general.  It 

m  Montgomery  (Ala.)  Atlas,  in  Chronicle,  April  23. 

™  Chronicle,  April  7,  1850. 

123  The  Columbus  Times  may  have  been  an  exception  to  this.  No 
files  of  this  paper  for  1850  have  been  examined  by  the  author. 


262 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


is  significant  that  the  Federal  Union  itself  blamed  the 
result  of  the  April  elections  in  part  upon  the  popular 
impression,  which  it  said  existed  in  both  parties,  that 
the  Nashville  convention  might  lead  to  disunion.  The 
implication  concerning  the  popular  opinion  of  disunion 
is  obvious  enough. 

The  evidence  of  the  March  and  April  elections, 
then,  would  seem  to  corroborate  other  evidence  already 
considered  in  support  of  the  conclusion  that  a  majority 
of  both  parties  in  Georgia  either  desired  compromise, 
or  else  were  indifferent  to  the  whole  controversy,  dur¬ 
ing  the  winter  and  spring  of  1850.  There  is  evidence, 
moreover,  that  during  this  period  the  masses  of  those 
interested  were  confident  that  the  compromise  they 
desired  could  actually  be  attained.124 

The  indifference  or  opposition  to  the  secession 
movement  was  displayed,  it  is  to  be  remembered,  de¬ 
spite  the  inflammatory  speeches  of  the  Georgia  con¬ 
gressmen,  despite  the  radical  measures  of  the  legisla¬ 
ture,  and  despite  the  excited  appeal  of  the  southern- 
rights  editors.  The  unrepresentative  character  of  the 
legislature  is  to  be  explained  in  part  by  the  fact  that  it 
was  chosen  during  the  fall  of  1849,  when  the  passage 
of  the  Proviso  in  the  coming  Congress  seemed  immi¬ 
nent  and  when  feeling  in  the  state  was  consequently 
becoming  warmer.  Under  these  circumstances,  an  un¬ 
usually  large  number  of  southern-rights  men  secured 
election  to  office  in  the  legislature.  This  body,  having 
worked  itself  up  to  a  white  heat  in  December,  stayed 
hot  all  winter,  the  while  the  people  cooled  off  with  the 
progress  of  the  compromise  movement  at  Washington. 

Cf.  H.  D.  Foster,  “Webster’s  Seventh  of  March  Speech  and  the 
Secession  Movement,  1850,”  American  Historical  Review,  XVII.  250,  251, 
(January,  1922).  The  view  is  here  taken  that  there  was  imminent  dan¬ 
ger  of  secession  in  Georgia  throughout  the  year  1850,  until  the  fall 
campaign  for  the  Union  stemmed  the  secession  tide. 


WINTER  WEATHER,  1849-1850 


263 


Members  of  the  legislature  were  by  the  very  nature  of 
their  position,  moreover,  more  apt  to  be  agitated  by 
each  new  development  in  the  sectional  controversy  than 
were  the  people  back  on  the  farms.  So,  too,  were  the 
southern-rights  editors,  who  followed  each  new  phase 
of  that  controversy  with  intense  interest  and  who  were 
inclined  to  express  the  opinions  of  politicians  there¬ 
upon,  rather  than  those  of  the  masses.125 

It  is  small  wonder  that  these  editors  “saw  further,” 
as  they  put  it,  than  did  many  of  their  own  readers — 
small  wonder  that  such  men  pushed  so  far  out  in  front 
of  the  southern-rights  parade  that  they  ceased  to  lead 
those  who  were  supposed  to  be  following  them.  This 
whole  situation  was  to  become  more  obvious  as  the 
year  progressed,  and  as  the  secessionists  made  their 
final  appeal  to  Georgia  to  “lead  off.” 

125  This  tendency  of  the  editors  to  express  the  views  of  politicians 
rather  than  of  the  people,  was  realized  and  regretted  by  some  of  the 
abler  papers  of  the  time ;  see,  e.g.,  the  citicisms  of  the  press  in  the 
Savannah  Georgian,  January  29;  Charleston  Mercury,  January  26,  1848. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 

As  a  result  of  the  insignificant  vote  cast  in  the 
April  election,  the  Whigs  questioned  whether  any  dele¬ 
gation  should  be  sent  from  Georgia  to  Nashville,  and 
most  of  their  delegates  proceeded  to  resign  or  failed  at 
the  last  moment  to  go.  There  was  little  or  no  inclina¬ 
tion  among  the  Georgia  Whigs,  as  there  was  among 
their  brethren  in  Mississippi  and  Alabama,1  to  attend 
simply  in  order  to  prevent  mischief.  Some  of  the 
Georgia  Democratic  delegates  also  declined  to  attend. 
When  notice  of  resignation  was  given  in  time,  Gover¬ 
nor  Towns  exercised  his  power,  granted  by  legislative 
provision,  to  appoint  a  successor  from  the  party  to 
which  the  delegate  belonged.2 

The  difficulties  of  securing  a  delegation  is  illus¬ 
trated  by  the  case  of  the  first  district.  Here  W.  J. 
Lawton  was  suggested  as  a  Democratic  delegate,  but 
declined  the  honor.  Old  Governor  Troup,  whose  name 
the  Georgia  Whigs  had  once  used  as  their  party  appel¬ 
lation,  was  then  elected  for  this  place,  his  letters  to  the 
press  having  identified  him  with  the  extremist  ele¬ 
ment.  At  the  last  moment,  however,  he  was  prevented 
from  going  to  Nashville  by  illness  in  his  family.  J.  H. 
Cooper,  who  had  been  chosen  as  his  Whig  colleague, 
also  finally  refused  to  attend.  The  first  district 

1  Cole,  Whig  Party  in  the  South,  p.  171. 

2  Of  the  eight  Whigs  originally  elected  only  one,  M.  P.  Crawford, 
of  the  second  district,  actually  attended.  The  other  seven  resigned  or 
failed  to  appear.  Two  of  the  Whig  substitutes  appointed  by  Towns  did 
attend.  In  three  districts,  the  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth,  the  Democratic 
as  well  as  the  Whig  delegates  declined  to  go  and  had  to  be  replaced 
by  Towns’  appointees. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850  265 

(Lower  Georgia)  was,  therefore,  entirely  unrepre¬ 
sented.3 

Prior  to  the  election  of  the  district  delegates,  the 
legislature  had  chosen  as  delegates-at-large  the  south¬ 
ern-rights  Democrats  McDonald  and  McAllister,  typi¬ 
cal  Georgia  “fire-eaters.”  McAllister  declined  the 
honor  and  was  replaced  by  ex-Senator  Colquitt.  The 
Georgia  delegation  that  actually  attended  at  Nashville, 
then,  consisted  finally  of  eight  southern-rights  Demo¬ 
crats  and  three  Whigs,  and  was  led  by  the  able  seces¬ 
sionists,  H.  L.  Benning  and  Charles  J.  McDonald.  It 
was,  therefore,  largely  unrepresentative  of  the  mass  of 
the  Georgia  people  who  had  nominally  chosen  the 
members.4 

Between  the  time  of  the  April  elections  and  the 
date  set  for  the  meeting  of  the  southern  convention  at 
Nashville  there  was  something  of  a  lull  in  the  general 
controversy  in  Georgia.  There  was,  indeed,  nothing 
to  be  done  save  to  await  the  Nashville  meeting  and  to 
follow  the  debates  still  proceeding  in  Congress. 

3  E.  J.  Harden,  Life  of  George  M.  Troup  (1859),  pp.  528,  529;  Na¬ 
tional  Intelligencer,  March  19,  21,  April  11;  Augusta  Chronicle,  June 
13,  1850. 

4  The  delegation  was  as  follows : 

Ex-Senator  Walter  T.  Colquitt,  (Democrat) 

Ex-Governor  Charles  J.  McDonald,  (Democrat) 

Delegates  at  Large. 

M.  P.  Crawford,  (Whig) 

James  W.  Ramsey,  (Whig) 

Robert  Bledsoe,  (Whig) 

H.  L.  Benning,  (Democrat) 

Obediah  C.  Gibson,  (Democrat) 

Judge  Obediah  Warner,  (Democrat) 

Simpson  Fouche,  (Democrat) 

John  G.  McWhertor,  (Democrat) 

Andrew  H.  Dawson,  (Democrat) 

District  Delegates. 

List  as  given  in  Resolutions,  Address  and  Proceedings  of  the  Southern 
Convention,  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Credentials,  p.  25.  Cf.  D.  T. 
Herndon,  “The  Nashville  Convention,”  Alabama  Historical  Society 
Publications,  V.  214;  Augusta  Chronicle,  June  19;  Washington  Union, 
April  14,  1850. 


266 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Through  May  and  June,  the  struggle  in  Congress 
over  the  specific  items  in  Clay’s  Omnibus  plan  con¬ 
tinued  to  be  acute  and  at  times  stormy,  though  the 
general  prospects  for  a  final  adjustment  had  been  fair¬ 
ly  good  since  March.  Toombs  and  Stephens  continued 
to  warn  the  North  that  the  South  was  in  earnest  when 
it  demanded  that  a  compromise  must  be  made.  In 
this  effort  to  keep  the  North  to  the  mark,  Toombs  was 
doubtless  successful,  but  he  went,  at  times,  so  far  as 
to  renew  the  impression  that  he  was  a  true  “fire-eater.” 
It  is  small  wonder  that  some  of  his  more  spirited  ad¬ 
dresses,  such  as  his  famous  “Hamilcar  speech,”5  re¬ 
newed  among  the  Georgia  extremists  the  hope  that 
Toombs  was  one  of  them  in  opposition  to  the  com¬ 
promise.  The  Whig  press,  however,  decried  their  as¬ 
sertions  to  this  effect,6  and  some  confusion  continued 
to  exist  as  to  his  real  attitude.  Northern  antislavery 
editors,  of  course,  renewed  their  dislike  of  Toombs 
for  the  same  reason  that  the  secessionists  had  renewed 
their  hope  in  him.  This  was  especially  true  after  a 
false  report  had  been  circulated  claiming  that  Toombs 
and  Stephens  had  so  threatened  President  Taylor,  be¬ 
cause  of  his  attitude  toward  the  “Galphin  Scandal,”7  as 
to  hasten  his  unexpected  death  on  July  9,  1850.8 
His  death,  exclaimed  the  Boston  Liberator,  has  been 
partly  induced  by  “the  bullying  of  such  desperate  men 

6  See  Congressional  Globe,  31  Congress,  First  Session,  p.  1216. 

*  Chronicle,  July  6,  1850. 

1  The  “Galphin  Scandal”  related  to  pre-Revolutionary  land  claims  in 
Georgia  and  chiefly  concerned  Crawford,  of  Georgia,  then  in  Taylor’s 
cabinet,  who  was  accused  of  using  his  position  to  secure  personal  profit. 
For  a  short  account,  see  Rhodes,  History  of  the  United  States,  I.  203, 
204. 

8  Rhodes,  op.  cit.,  I.  176,  credited  this  malicious  story.  Its  fallacious¬ 
ness  is  analyzed  in  Cole,  Whig  Party,  p.  168,  note  102;  and  in  Phillips,. 
Toombs,  pp.  84,  85. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850  267 

as  Toombs  of  Alabama  (?)  and  Stephens  of  Geor¬ 
gia.”9 

The  death  of  Taylor,  of  course,  removed  the  grow¬ 
ing  tension  between  the  administration  and  the  major¬ 
ity  of  the  Whigs,  while  the  moderation  of  Fillmore, 
his  successor,  brought  the  influence  of  the  new  admin¬ 
istration  to  the  compromise  cause.  The  Omnibus  plan 
was  now  almost  certain  of  adoption,  even  though  it 
was  to  be  taken  entirely  apart  in  the  process.10  Since 
February  the  majority  of  the  Georgia  delegation  at 
Washington  had  favored  its  passage.  Owen,  the  third 
Whig  representative,  had  followed  his  two  colleagues 
in  this,  and  Hackett,  the  second  Union  Democrat,  fol¬ 
lowed  Cobb.  Wellborn,  a  third  Democrat,  also  came 
during  the  summer  to  accept  the  adjustment.11  Haral¬ 
son  alone,  of  the  original  delegation,  maintained  his 
opposition,  but  he  was  joined  in  this  attitude  by  Joseph 
W.  Jackson,  the  Democrat  who  had  succeeded  King  as 
a  result  of  the  special  February  election  in  the  first 
district.12 

Dawson  continued  in  the  Senate  his  consistent 
course  of  moderation  and  his  approval  of  Clay’s  plan. 
The  position  of  Berrien,  on  the  other  hand,  was  a 
peculiar  one.  Clay  had  appealed  to  him  personally,  as 
an  old  Whig  supporter,  to  accept  the  Omnibus,  on 

9  Liberator,  August  2,  1850;  see  also  the  Columbus  Ohio  State 
Journal,  July  19,  1850.  Some  northern  papers,  however,  praised  Toombs  ; 
the  New  York  Sun,  e.g.,  considered  Toombs  as  the  ablest  man  “by  far’’ 
from  the  South,  an  opinion  which  was  seconded  by  the  Richmond 
Times,  quoted  in  the  Chronicle,  March  9,  1850. 

10  Hodgson  is  of  the  opinion  that,  had  Taylor  lived,  the  southern 
Whig  party  would  have  been  broken  up  by  the  issue  between  the  admin¬ 
istration  and  the  Clay  supporters.  This  “would  have  precipitated  in 
1850  the  revolution  which  the  death  of  General  Taylor  postponed  until 
1860.”  J.  Hodgson,  The  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  or  the  Times  of 
Troup,  Quitman  and  Yancey  (1876),  p.  276. 

11  For  Wellborn’s  attitude,  see  his  letter  of  September  16,  published  in 
the  Chronicle,  September  27,  1850. 

19  For  Jackson’s  attitude,  see  Savannah  Nezvs,  July  31,  1850. 


268 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  ground  that  it  would  bring  the  country  thirty  years 
of  peace.13  Yet  Berrien  could  not  bring  himself  to 
accept  Clay’s  plan.  How  far  his  alienation  from  the 
younger  and  more  vigorous  leaders  of  the  Georgia 
party  and  how  far  his  declining  influence  since  the 
schism  of  1849  were  factors  in  his  dissatisfaction,  it  is 
difficult  to  say.  He  was  beset  by  letters  from  Whig 
friends  at  home  who  favored  the  Omnibus,  but  ex¬ 
cused  them  on  the  ground  that  they  were  not  present 
in  Congress  to  witness  the  “deadly  hostility  of  the 
North  against  slavery.”  This,  he  explained  to  a 
friend  in  Milledgeville,  “makes  my  blood  boil.”  He 
talked  freely  with  Clay  about  his  objections  and 
made  the  interesting  statement  that  Clay  agreed  per¬ 
sonally  with  some  of  his  views,  but  admitted  that  he 
could  not  openly  say  so,  lest  he  “jeopardize”  the 
chances  of  his  bill.14 

Yet  Berrien  was  not  a  secessionist.  When  friends 
told  him  he  must  accept  Clay’s  scheme  or  risk  disunion 
and  civil  war,  he  replied : 

I  have  no  such  fear, — I  know  the  attachment  of  our  people 
to  the  Union.  If  united  we  have  ample  means  of  resistance 
within  the  constitution.  Withdraw  southern  votes  for  “pro¬ 
tected”  northern  commerce  and  industry,  and  slavery  will  not 
be  further  interfered  with.15 

In  other  words,  Berrien  desired  to  reject  the  com¬ 
promise  and  at  the  same  time  to  attempt  to  apply 
economic  pressure  against  the  North  as  a  means  of 
defense  which  would  be  safer  and  saner  than  seces¬ 
sion.  This  was  a  half-way  stand  between  Union  and 

13  Jefferson  Davis,  A  Memoir  by  His  Wife,  (1890),  I.  447. 

"Berrien  to  Major  Harris,  July  19,  1850,  Berrien  MSS. 

15  Ibid.  The  recipient  evidently  pondered  this  letter  seriously,  as 
across  the  back  in  another  hand  are  written  the  phrases :  “The  insuffi¬ 
ciency  of  the  Compromise  measures”,  “Hostility  of  the  North”,  “How  to 
resist  them  in  the  Union?” 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


269 


secession  principles  which  was  bound  to  place  him  and 
any  Georgians  who  followed  him  in  an  uncertain  and 
rather  unsatisfactory  position.16 

On  June  3,  while  the  situation  at  Washington  was 
still  rather  tense,  the  long  heralded  southern  conven¬ 
tions  contained  groups  of  Whigs  who  lent  a  moderate 
Tennessee,  which  had  a  delegation  of  more  than  one 
hundred,  all  but  a  few  delegates  came  from  the  six 
states  of  Georgia,  Alabama,  Mississippi,  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  Florida,  and  Virginia.  Most  of  the  members  were 
Democrats,  but  the  Mississippi  and  Alabama  delega¬ 
tions  contained  groups  of  Whigs  who  lent  a  moderate 
character  to  the  personnel  from  those  states.  The 
delegations  from  South  Carolina  and  Georgia  were 
the  most  radical,  being  dominated  by  the  secessionists, 
Hammond,  Rhett,  Barnwell,  Benning,  Colquitt,  and 
McDonald.17  This  group  directed  the  efforts  to  make 
the  convention  take  extreme  ground,  though  some  of 
them  already  realized  that  the  meeting  was  not  a  rep¬ 
resentative  one  and  would  probably  exercise  little  in¬ 
fluence.18  Judge  Sharkey,  of  Mississippi,  was  chosen 
president  and  McDonald,  of  Georgia,  vice-president  of 
the  convention. 

June  3  was  taken  up  by  President  Sharkey’s  mod¬ 
erate  address  and  the  next  day  by  the  examination  of 

16  He  voted  for  the  bills  referring  to  Utah  and  New  Mexico  and 
to  the  Texas  boundary,  but  against  the  California  and  District  bills. 
In  rejecting  the  California  bill  he  warned  the  Senate  that  it  would 
result  in  a  call  of  the  state  convention  in  Georgia  and  that  this  might 
mean  extreme  action.  The  Baltimore  Sun  could  not  understand  his 
position  at  all;  see  the  Chronicle,  July  15,  October  6;  Montgomery  Daily 
Alabama  Journal,  August  9,  1850. 

17  D.  T.  Herndon,  “The  Nashville  Convention,”  Alabama  Historical 
Society  Publications,  V.  216-218;  St.  George  L.  Sioussat,  “Tennessee, 
The  Compromise  of  1850,  and  the  Nashville  Convention,”  Mississippi 
Valley  Historical  Review,  II.  332-336. 

18  Elizabeth  Merritt,  “James  H.  Hammond,”  Johns  Hopkins  Univer¬ 
sity  Studies  in  History  and  Political  Science,  Series  XLI.  No.  4,  p.  95  ; 
hereafter  referred  to  as  Merritt,  James  H.  Hammond. 


270 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


credentials  and  the  appointment  of  a  general  com¬ 
mittee  to  which  all  resolutions  introduced  were  re¬ 
ferred.  Benning  and  McDonald  were  made  members 
of  this  body.  The  sessions  of  June  5  to  June  8  were 
occupied  with  the  introduction  of  numerous  resolutions 
and  by  speeches  concerning  the  same. 

The  Georgia  delegation  was  quite  active.  On 
June  5,  A.  H.  Dawson  introduced  resolutions  endors¬ 
ing  a  plan  for  a  southern-rights  press  at  Washing¬ 
ton  ;19  on  the  same  day  Benning  introduced  a  veritable 
“platform”  in  the  shape  of  twenty-three  resolutions. 
These  resolutions  proclaimed  the  rights  of  slavery  in 
the  Union,  demanded  that  nothing  less  than  the  Mis¬ 
souri  line  could  be  accepted  by  the  South  as  a  com¬ 
promise  of  the  territorial  problem,  urged  southern 
party  unity  as  essential  to  the  protection  of  southern- 
rights  in  the  Union,  proclaimed  the  right  to  leave  the 
Union,  and  insisted  that  a  continued  refusal  by  the 
North  to  enforce  the  fugitive  slave  law  should  be  met 
by  retaliatory  non-intercourse  measures.20 

Benning’s  resolution  declaring  the  Missouri  line  a 
sine  qua  non  for  compromise  was  interesting,  as  it 
offered  the  first  evidence  that  the  Georgia  secessionists 
were  about  to  adopt  new  tactics.  The  Missouri  Com¬ 
promise  principle  had  been  advocated  by  the  southern- 
rights  Democrats  of  Georgia  in  1847  and  had  then  been 
abandoned  and  refused  by  them  in  the  Georgia  legis¬ 
lature  of  1849-50,  only  to  be  reasserted  in  the  sum¬ 
mer  of  1850.  This  reassertion  of  the  principle  by 
the  secessionists  in  June  was,  paradoxically  enough, 
probably  motivated  by  the  same  reason  which  had  led 
the  legislature  to  refuse  it  in  January;  namely,  be- 

18  Resolutions,  Address  and  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  South¬ 
ern  Convention,  p.  33. 

20  Ibid.,  pp.  35-39. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


271 


cause  it  was  known  the  North  would  no  longer  accept 
the  Missouri  Compromise.  Leaders  like  Benning  and 
Hammond  had  long  hoped,  though  they  did  not  admit 
it  openly,  even  at  Nashville,  that  no  adjustment  could 
be  reached.21  They  were  therefore  not  averse  to  urg¬ 
ing  the  South  to  demand  a  compromise  which  they  were 
convinced  would  not  be  granted. 

On  July  7,  Fouche  of  Georgia  introduced  interest¬ 
ing  resolutions  tacitly  condemning  the  pending  com¬ 
promise  schemes  in  Congress.  These  declared  that 
“compromises”  made  by  a  weaker  party  with  a 
“stronger”  were  in  reality  concessions  made  for  the 
sake  of  repose,  and  that  such  concessions  made  at 
periodical  intervals  were  bound  eventually  to  con¬ 
cede  everything.  A  last  resolution  asserted  the  right 
of  a  people  to  alter  or  abolish  an  oppressive  govern¬ 
ment.22 

These  resolutions  are  of  interest  here  in  expressing 
the  temper  of  the  Georgia  delegation,  but  they  were 
not  actually  used  as  a  basis  for  the  resolutions  finally 
adopted  by  the  convention.  The  latter  were  founded 
upon  proposals  introduced  by  Judge  Campbell  of  Ala¬ 
bama,  and  the  address  which  accompanied  them  was 
said  to  have  been  the  work  of  Rhett.23  Twenty-eight 
resolutions  in  all  were  adopted,  relating  chiefly  to  a 
statement  of  the  rights  of  slavery  and  the  duties  of 
Congress  in  this  connection.  The  most  important  were 

21  For  Benning’s  early  attitude,  see  his  letter  to  Cobb,  July  1,  1849, 
Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  171.  On  Hammond  see 
Merritt,  James  H.  Hammond,  pp.  97,  98.  For  a  contemporary  analysis 
of  the  inconsistency  of  Benning’s  resolution  with  the  attitude  of  the 
Georgia  legislature,  see  the  Washington  Union,  August  13,  1850. 

23  Resolutions,  Address  and  Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Southern 
Convention,  p.  50.  For  convenient  telegraphic  summaries  of  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  see  the  Washington  Union,  June  6,  7,  8,  11,  12,  13,  14,  15,  1850. 

23  Sioussat,  “Tennessee,  The  Compromise  of  1850,  and  the  Nashville 
Convention,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  II.  336,  337. 


272 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  eleventh  resolution,  which  embodied  Benning’s  idea 
of  offering  the  Missouri  line  as  the  maximum  conces¬ 
sion  of  southern  rights  in  the  territories,  and  the  twen¬ 
ty-eighth,  which  provided  that  a  second  session  of  the 
convention  should  meet  about  six  weeks  after  the  ad¬ 
journment  of  Congress. 

The  “Address  to  the  Southern  People,”  which  ac¬ 
companied  the  resolutions,  reviewed  northern  aggres¬ 
sions  in  the  fashion  then  orthodox  in  southern  “ad¬ 
dresses.”  It  then  proceeded  to  condemn  the  Clay  Om¬ 
nibus  in  general  and  in  detail.  The  California  bill,  it 
declared,  applied  the  Proviso;  the  Texas  Boundary 
bill  “partitioned”  Texas;  the  abolition  of  the  slave 
trade  in  the  District  was  a  step  towards  the  abolition 
of  slavery  therein;  and  the  Fugitive  Slave  bill  was  in¬ 
efficient  and  not  in  any  real  sense  a  concession  by  the 
North.  In  this  way,  the  Address  stated  the  chief  ob¬ 
jections  to  the  Omnibus  and  supplied  the  southern- 
rights  men  with  an  indictment  which  would  be  useful 
in  opposing  that  plan.24 

The  attitude  of  most  of  the  Georgia  delegates  to¬ 
wards  the  Address  was  well  expressed  by  Colquitt,  who 
remarked  that  “it  was  indeed  tame  enough”  and  added 
that  he  would  advise  the  southern  states  to  prepare 
munitions  of  war  and  to  get  ready  for  final  resis¬ 
tance.25  A  formal  protest  entered  against  the  Address 
by  the  Alabama  Whig  delegates  was  not  signed  by  any 
of  the  Georgia  delegation. 

24  For  the  Resolutions  and  Address  see  Resolutions,  Address  and 
Journal  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Southern  Convention,  p.  51  ff.  See 
also  Ames,  State  Documents,  pp.  263-269;  M.  W.  Cluskey,  Political  Text 
Book  (1857),  gives  the  first  thirteen  of  the  resolutions.  For  further 
notes  and  references  to  the  sources  for  the  convention,  see  foot  notes 
to  Sioussat,  op.  cit.,  especially  note  64. 

25  Washington  Republic,  June  17,  1850;  see  also  Ames,  “John  C.  Cal¬ 
houn,”  University  of  Pennsylvania  Public  Lectures.  1917-1918,  p.  127. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


273 


On  June  12  the  convention  adjourned  to  await  the 
action  of  Congress.  It  had  created  some  excitement 
in  the  North,  where  it  was  accused  of  fomenting  trea¬ 
son,26  and  where  a  report  had  spread  that  President 
Taylor  would  suppress  it  with  troops.  It  was  gener¬ 
ally  agreed,  however,  that  the  “Disunionists  in  Ses¬ 
sion”  had  proved  an  unrepresentative  group  and  had 
accomplished  nothing. 

Apparently  undisturbed  by  such  opinions,  the  dele¬ 
gates  wended  homeward  to  appeal  for  the  support  of 
their  own  states.  When  the  Carolinians  reached  home, 
Rhett  made  a  violent  disunion  speech,  which  openly 
proclaimed  the  real  purpose  of  the  secessionists.  This 
was  dangerous,  as  it  was  sure  to  bring  violent  condem¬ 
nation  from  the  Union-loving  masses  outside  of  South 
Carolina.27  It  was  apt  to  convince  some  in  Georgia, 
hitherto  doubtful,  that  “secession  per  se ”  was  indeed 
the  purpose  of  “Palmettodom.” 

The  Georgia  delegation  was  more  tactful  upon  its 
return,  but  set  to  work  with  the  other  extremist  leaders 
to  organize  public  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  late  con¬ 
vention.  Their  problem  was  a  difficult  one,  but  they 
were  resourceful  men,  and  a  plan  of  campaign  was 
already  at  hand  in  the  move  proposed  by  Penning  at 
Nashville.  The  March  elections  had  indicated  that 
not  only  almost  all  the  Whigs,  but  the  majority  of  the 
Democrats  as  well,  were  either  indifferent  or  opposed 
to  secession  for  any  causes  then  known.  This  meant 
that  many  Democrats  who  could  be  termed  “southern- 
rights”  men  in  the  sense  that  they  favored  southern 

26  Many  of  the  northern  papers  compared  the  Nashville  proceedings 
with  those  of  the  “Hartford  Convention”  of  1815. 

27  For  Rhett’s  speech  and  Clay’s  violent  condemnation  of  it,  see  the 
Washington  Union,  July  24,  25,  1850.  Hammond,  though  sharing  Rhett’s 
views,  bitterly  condemned  his  indiscretion  in  openly  proclaiming  them,  see 
Merritt,  James  H.  Hammond,  p.  97. 


274 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


political  unity  against  the  North,  were  not  yet  pre¬ 
pared  to  support  a  secession  movement.  This  group, 
however,  as  has  been  suggested,  could  probably  be 
counted  upon  to  support  the  Missouri  line  principle, 
in  the  belief  that  such  support  represented  an  honest 
effort  at  compromise.  If  the  secessionists  could  but 
persuade  the  South  to  demand  the  Missouri  line  as  an 
ultimatum,  the  North  was  certain  to  reject  it,  and  the 
South  would  then  have  no  alternative  but  to  secede.28 
How  soon  it  would  be  expedient  for  the  extremists  in 
Georgia  to  come  out  for  secession  would  then  be  de¬ 
termined  by  circumstances. 

At  the  same  time  that  the  secessionists  were  anxi¬ 
ous  to  arouse  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  Nashville  con¬ 
vention  and  its  Missouri-line  ultimatum,  they  were  na¬ 
turally  desirous  that  the  Clay  compromise  should  be 
condemned.  It  was  necessary,  if  the  Georgia  people 
were  ever  to  be  aroused,  that  an  energetic  campaign 
directed  towards  these  ends  be  inaugurated  immedi¬ 
ately  upon  the  return  of  the  Nashville  delegation. 

This  renewed  radical  campaign  of  the  summer  was 
opened,  naturally  enough,  by  the  southern-rights  edi¬ 
tors.  The  radical  press  did  not  immediately  come  out 
openly  for  secession,  but  urged  that  the  Clay  plan  was 
“no  compromise”;  that  it  was  insulting  to  the  South; 
that  Congress  should  therefore  adjourn;  that  the 
South  should  unite  on  the  Missouri-line  ultimatum  of 
the  late  convention  and  then  make  this  the  chief  issue 

28  That  this  was  probably  the  real  intention  of  the  secessionists  is 
indicated  by  the  private  views  of  such  leaders  as  Benning  and  Hammond, 
already  noted;  by  the  sudden  shift  in  the  policy  of  the  Georgia  extremists 
in  1850  from  opposing  the  Missouri  line  in  the  legislature,  to  favoring 
it  at  Nashville,  and  later  at  home ;  and  by  the  shrewd  analyses  of  their 
purpose  made  by  the  Union  Democrats,  especially  those  of  John  H. 
Lumpkin  and  Dr.  Richard  Arnold,  to  be  noted  below.  See,  c.g.,  W.  H. 
Morton  to  Cobb.  July  10;  John  H.  Lumpkin  to  Cobb,  July  21;  Toombs, 
Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  194,  206;  Arnold  to  Forney, 
December  18,  1850,  Arnold  MSS.,  etc. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


275 


in  the  coming  congressional  elections.  There  was  gen¬ 
eral  agreement  in  approving  the  Nashville  convention 
and  all  its  works.29 

Editorials  were  then  supplemented  by  resort  to 
another  traditional  method  of  arousing  public  senti¬ 
ment.  Appeals  were  made  to  the  people  to  “get  up” 
southern-rights  meetings.  The  Federal  Union  was 
able  to  list  by  July  10  some  thirteen  counties  in  which 
southern-rights  meetings  had  been  held,  most  of  them 
in  connection,  however,  with  the  usual  celebration  of 
the  Fourth  of  July.  In  nearly  every  case  resolutions 
were  adopted  condemning  the  Clay  plan  and  demanding 
the  Nashville  ultimatum.  The  chief  speakers  were 
the  erstwhile  delegates  to  the  southern  convention, 
McDonald,  Colquitt,  McWhertor,  and  A.  H.  Dawson, 
who  went  from  one  meeting  to  another  upholding  their 
cause.  Associated  with  them,  as  before,  was  the  vig¬ 
orous  “old  Whig”  editor,  James  Smythe,  of  Augusta. 
There  was  no  open  advocacy  of  secession,  but  A.  H. 
Dawson  revealed  at  Augusta  the  next  step  in  the  plan 
for  organizing  the  extremist  movement.  This  was 
that  every  county  should  form  a  “southern  rights  asso¬ 
ciation”  whose  purpose  would  be  to  arouse  local  en¬ 
thusiasm  and  to  insure  cooperation  with  similar  asso¬ 
ciations  throughout  the  state.30  This  plan  may  have 
been  urged  upon  the  Georgia  delegates  at  Nashville 
by  their  colleagues  from  South  Carolina,  where  such 
local  associations  had  been  formed  more  than  a  year 
before.31  The  plan  for  local  organization  would  pro¬ 
bably  have  met  with  a  general  response,  as  it  did  in 
South  Carolina,  had  there  been  widespread  and  intense 

29  Federal  Union,  July  10,  17,  24,  31  ;  Georgian,  July  24,  25,  1850. 

30  Federal  Union,  July  10;  Washington  Union,  June  24,  July  17; 
Columbus  (Georgia)  Times,  July  18,  in  Washington  Union,  July  27, 
1850;  Georgian,  July  10,  1850. 

31  Hamer,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina,  p.  32. 


276 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


excitement.  In  fact,  it  was  taken  up  by  some  of  the 
papers,  but  does  not  seem  to  have  born  much  fruit  in 
the  state  during  the  summer.32 

The  accounts  of  the  July  southern-rights  meetings, 
as  given  by  their  friends,  were  enthusiastic  ones.  That 
held  in  Columbus  on  July  16  was  the  largest  and  prob¬ 
ably  the  most  important  meeting,  as  Columbus  was  the 
home  of  an  unusual  number  of  extremists.  Those  in 
charge  prepared,  after  the  manner  of  the  day,  a  large 
barbecue  in  order  to  attract  both  the  town  and  coun¬ 
try-folk  to  an  all-day  political  outing.  There  were  to 
be  lots  to  eat  and  lots  of  excitement — food  for  both 
body  and  mind.  The  streets  were  crowded  early  by 
farmers  coming  into  town,  and  it  was  claimed  that  by 
ten  in  the  morning  a  crowd  of  three  thousand  had 
gathered  at  “Smith’s  spacious  warehouse.”  Here  hun¬ 
dreds  could  not  reach  the  long  tables  spread  for  the 
feast  and  “ate  their  good  Southern  meat  and  bread 
without  knife,  fork,  or  plate.”  The  affair  lasted,  with 
intermissions  for  meals,  until  midnight.  There  were  ten 
speakers,  most  of  them  prominent  local  citizens,  like 
Major  J.  H.  Howard,  “to  whom  was  assigned  the  task 
of  exposing  the  frauds  of  the  Clay  Compromise  and 
whose  execution  of  his  trust  was  masterly.”  Some 
were  from  nearby  counties,  such  as  Porter  Ingram,  of 
Harris,  “who,  though  a  Northern  man  by  birth,  had 
imbibed  all  of  Georgia’s  principles  and  boldly  avowed 
he  would  fight  for  her  rights.”  Three  speakers  came 
across  the  Chattahoochee  from  Barbour  County,  Ala¬ 
bama,  and  “the  people  seemed  never  weary  of  listen¬ 
ing  to  them.”  All  of  these  speakers  claimed  that  the 
Clay  compromise  would  lead  to  disunion  “or  to  a  result 

33  See,  e.g.,  the  Georgian,  July  10,  1850.  An  association  was  formed 
in  Camden  County,  and  there  may  have  been  a  few  others  which  escaped 
general  notice  in  the  press. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


277 


still  more  deplorable — a  servile  war  and  the  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  white  or  black  race  throughout  the  South.”33 
Both  the  emphasis  on  the  race  problem  and  the  failure 
openly  to  advocate  secession  are  worthy  of  note. 

The  accounts  of  southern-rights  meetings  as  given 
by  Union  Democrats,  of  course,  took  on  quite  a  differ¬ 
ent  tone.  “A  meeting  was  held  on  the  4th  day  of  July 
in  Cobb,”  wrote  John  H.  Lumpkin.  “Fouche,  Stiles, 
McDonald  and  Joe  Brown  were  the  only  persons  in¬ 
vited  or  who  attended,  and  they  had  everything  their 
own  way.  They  studiously  concealed  from  the  people 
their  ulterior  purposes,  and  carefully  arranged  it  so 
that  no  one  opposed  to  them  should  be  heard  on  that 
occasion.”34  The  Saundersville  Central  Georgian 
made  this  charge  general,  stating  that  “almost  all  the 
meetings  that  had  been  called  to  approve  the  Nashville 
Convention  were  called  only  for  those  who  favored 
it — others  being  excluded.  In  some  counties,  after 
general  meetings  proved  moderate,  a  few  radicals 
would  withdraw  and  pass  southern  rights  resolutions. 
No  fair  meeting  in  any  city  would  favor  the  Nashville 
meeting.”35 

The  evidence  to  be  had  indicates  that  these  meet¬ 
ings  were  not  usually  the  result  of  spontaneous  popu¬ 
lar  demand,  but  were  rather  the  result  of  studied  effort 
by  the  small  and  able  group  of  enthusiasts,  who  had  in 
mind  the  ultimate  purpose  already  discussed.36  It  was 
very  evident,  however,  that  the  radical  leaders  were 

33  Columbus  Times,  July  18,  in  Washington  Union,  July  27,  1850.  For 
similarly  enthusiastic  accounts  of  Georgia  meetings  see  the  Columbia 
South  Carolinian,  July  25,  1850. 

34  Lumpkin  to  Cobb,  July  21,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Cor¬ 
respondence,  p.  207. 

35  In  Chronicle,  July  27,  1850. 

36  See,  e.g.,  the  account  of  efforts  to  arouse  excitement  in  Athens,  as 
described  in  a  letter  of  W.  H.  Morton  to  Cobb,  July  10,  1850,  Toombs, 
Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence ,  p.  194. 


278 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


thoroughly  in  earnest  in  their  renewed  effort  to  arouse 
extremist  feeling. 

The  most  dangerous  groups  among  the  extremists, 
from  the  Union  Democrat’s  viewpoint,  were,  first,  the 
“old  nullifiers,”  who  had  left  the  Whig  Party  in 
1840  ;37  and,  second,  those  who  were  of  South  Carolina 
origin  and  who  had  brought  their  Carolina  views  with 
them  into  the  Georgia  Democracy.38  This  last  group 
was  particularly  strong  in  Savannah  and  in  the  coun¬ 
ties  “along  the  river.”  The  two  groups  together  made 
up  the  real  “fire-eaters”  of  Georgia.  In  Savannah, 
Dr.  Richard  Arnold,  several  times  mayor  of  the  city 
and  representative  at  Milledgeville,  was  convinced 
that  the  South  Carolinians  were  at  the  bottom  of  the 
renewed  radical  agitation.  Toward  the  end  of  June, 
while  there  was  much  debating  of  Clay’s  plan  in  Savan¬ 
nah,  Arnold  happened  to  defend  that  plan  at  a  “wine 
party”  he  was  attending.  Much  to  his  surprise,  he  was 
jeered  and  told  that  “both  parties  at  the  North  were 
rotten  on  the  subject  of  slavery — the  South  must  look 
out  for  herself.”  He  was  indignant  that  Democrats 
could  say  this,  but  found  the  explanation  in  the  fact 
that  “half  of  those  present  were  South  Carolina 
men.”39 

The  opinions  of  some  of  the  conservative  observers 
concerning  public  feeling  in  July  are  interesting  and 
suggestive  in  the  light  of  what  had  already  occurred 
in  the  spring  and  what  was  to  come  later  in  the  fall. 
Lamar  wrote  Cobb,  July  3,  from  Macon,  criticising 
severely  the  reckless  and  unrepresentative  character 

"  See  chapter  iii. 

38  See  chapter  ii. 

38  Arnold  to  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold  MSS.  For  notes  on 
Forney’s  position  in  the  northern  Democracy  see  R.  F.  Nichols,  The 
Democratic  Machine,  1850-1854,  pp.  33,  48,  64,  70,  published  in  the 
Columbia  University  Studies,  CXI,  No.  1  (1923). 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


279 


of  the  extremist  journals,  which  has  already  been  com¬ 
mented  upon  in  connection  with  the  April  election.  He 
said : 

The  Democratic  press  in  middle  Georgia  is  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  are  leading  the  party  to  the  devil.  Their  audacious 
assertions  have  heretofore  been  treated  as  idle  and  harmless 
bravadoes;  but  as  they  are  now  doing  mischief  there  seems  to 
be  a  spirit  rising  among  the  people  to  speak  out  and  let  their 
representatives  in  Congress  know  what  public  sentiment  really 
is.  .  .  .  The  game  played  by  some  of  the  Democratic  presses 
is  to  browbeat  our  representatives  in  Congress  into  the  belief 
that  the  people  are  opposed  desperately  to  the  Senate  Compro¬ 
mise.  .  .  .  It  is  queer  how  impudently  they  utter  what 

everybody  knows  to  be  untrue.  As  an  example,  a  press  in  this 
place40  .  .  .  italicized  these  words,  “The  Compromise  has 

no  friends  in  the  South  and  never  had,”  and  a  few  hours  after 
the  appearance  of  the  above  alluded  to  a  call  of  a  meeting  of 
the  friends  of  the  Compromise  numbered  over  100  highly  re¬ 
spectable  names.  I  can  say  .  .  .  pay  no  attention  to  what 

the  papers  say.  The  noise  and  bluster  of  a  few  presses  in 
Georgia  is  no  more  the  voice  of  the  people  than  the  delegates  to 
the  Nashville  Convention  were  their  representatives ,41 

Another  gentleman  in  Macon  wrote  in  mid-July, 
“I  am  satisfied  by  a  close  observation  of  the  opinions 
of  the  people  in  both  political  parties  in  this  section 
that  they  are  all  for  the  Union  is  certain.”42  In  a 
somewhat  more  cautious  manner,  the  Macon  Journal 
had  observed  late  in  June  that,  “seven  tenths  of  the 
people  are  in  favor  of  an  adjustment  and  the  action 
of  the  Nashville  convention  is  increasing  the  number 
rapidly.”  The  Chronicle  reminded  it  that  the  majority 
which  favored  adjustment  even  before  the  convention 
met  had  also  been  “very  large.”43  One  conservative 
observer  in  Central  Georgia  did  fear  that  the  majority 

40  Probably  the  Macon  Telegraph. 

41 J.  B.  Lamar  to  Cobb,  July  3,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  pp.  191,  192;  the  italics  are  my  own. 

43  Quoted  in  Republican  July  24,  1850. 

43  Chronicle,  June  28,  1850. 


280 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


of  the  Democrats  in  that  section  were  in  danger  of 
being  tricked  into  secession.  This  was  Absolom  H. 
Chappell,  who  wrote  Cobb  on  July  10,  also  from  Ma¬ 
con,  that, 

the  Democratic  party  of  this  section  of  the  state  is  becoming 
rapidly  demoralized  in  reference  to  the  great  question  of  the 
preservation  of  the  Union.  The  game  of  the  destructives  is  to 
use  the  Missouri  Compromise  principle  as  a  medium  of  defeat¬ 
ing  all  adjustment  and  then  to  make  the  most  of  succeeding 
events  ...  to  infuriate  the  South  and  drive  her  into  meas¬ 
ures  that  must  end  in  disunion. 

Chappell  believed,  however,  that  “the  Whigs  are  more 
united  for  ...  a  proper  course  than  the  Democrats 
are  against  it,”  and  declared  that  the  “Ultraists”  did 
not  yet  dare  to  come  out  openly  for  secession.44 

John  H.  Lumpkin,  reporting  to  Cobb  on  conditions 
in  Upper  Georgia  in  July,  declared  that  all  the  Whigs 
there  were  for  the  compromise  and  that,  while  a  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  Democrats  might  favor  the  Missouri  line 
as  a  settlement  of  the  territorial  difficulty,  they  were, 
nevertheless,  “for  a  settlement  in  good  faith.”  The 
only  danger  was  that  unless  warned  they  might  be 
tricked  by  the  “Ultraists”  into  an  impracticable  mode 
of  adjustment.  The  only  real  secessionists  were  the 
“old  Nullifyers”  of  1832.45  “You  cannot  imagine,” 
wrote  a  friend  in  Eatonton  to  Cobb  a  month  later, 
“how  perfectly  quiet  the  people  are  on  the  subject  of 
all  the  stir  and  fuss  at  Washington,  and  they  are  heart¬ 
ily  sick  and  disgusted  with  the  pretended  excitement 
there.  Nobody  at  home,  Whig  or  Democrat,  believes 

“Chappell  to  Cobb,  July  10,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Cor¬ 
respondence,  pp.  193,  194. 

46  J.  H.  Lumpkin  to  Cobb,  Rome,  July  21,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  207. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850  281 

that  any  man  there  feels  what  he  expresses  of  ultra- 
ism.”46 

In  Coastal  Georgia  there  was  little  evidence  of  ex¬ 
citement  in  July  and  August.  The  Whig  planters  who 
dominated  this  region47  may  have  been  excited  in 
December,  1849,  lest  the  Proviso  pass,  but  they  were 
now  willing  to  accept  the  compromise.  Only  in  Savan¬ 
nah  was  there  some  uncertainty,  where  the  mixed  na¬ 
ture  of  the  population,  which  included  numbers  of 
South  Carolinians,  Yankees  and  European  immi¬ 
grants,48  made  an  estimate  of  popular  feeling  difficult. 

In  spite  of  their  optimism,  the  conservatives  felt 
that  the  southern-rights  meetings  called  for  an  answer 
which  should  both  point  out  to  the  people  the  real 
purpose  of  the  secessionists  and  at  the  same  time  dem¬ 
onstrate,  as  Lamar  put  it,  the  real  feeling  of  the  people. 
Hence  Union  meetings  were  held  in  the  chief  towns 
where  the  enemy  had  staged  gatherings,  and  special 
appeals  to  the  people  were  issued  by  leading  Union 
men.  In  Macon  the  Citizen,  a  militant  pro-Union 
paper  edited  by  a  man  of  northern  origin,  asked  the 
opinion  of  ex-Congressman  Absalom  H.  Chappell 
upon  the  great  question.  Chappell,  who  believed 
the  spirit  among  the  Democrats  was  dangerous, 
replied  in  a  veritable  essay,  which  occupied  no 
less  than  seven  columns  in  the  Washington  Union.49 
It  was  essentially  an  appeal  to  the  southern  Democrats 
to  accept  the  Clay  compromise  and  a  plea  for  the  pre¬ 
servation  of  “this  glorious  Union  of  ours,  which  now 
overshadows  America  from  ocean  to  ocean,  like  a  very 

49  J.  A.  Meriwether  to  Cobb,  Aug.  24,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  211. 

47  The  population  of  the  shore  area  of  these  counties  was  from 
75%  to  90%  Negro. 

43  See  chapter  ii. 

49  Macon  Citizen,  July  6,  in  the  Washington  Union,  July  13,  1850. 


282 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


heaven  sent  down  to  us  undeservers  by  a  too  benign¬ 
ant  God !”  Similar  efforts  to  warn  the  people  against 
disunion  were  now  made  in  addresses  to  their  consti¬ 
tuents  by  the  Democrats,  Cobb  and  Wellborn,  at  Wash¬ 
ington.50 

All  the  conservative  meetings  now  began  to  em¬ 
phasize,  even  more  than  had  been  the  case  in  the 
spring,  this  appeal  for  the  Union,  the  power  of  which 
in  attracting  the  masses  can  hardly  be  exaggerated. 
It  may  well  have  been  an  asset  to  those  making  the 
Union  appeal  that  a  victorious  war  had  been  waged 
but  two  years  before  with  the  usual  accompaniment  of 
patriotic  enthusiasm  among  the  masses,  though  it  was 
the  irony  of  fate  that  the  very  Whig  leaders  now  em¬ 
phasizing  nation-wide  patriotism  had  been  opposed  to 
that  war. 

The  Columbus  Union  meeting  well  illustrates  the 
appeal  to  traditional  loyalties.  It  was  held  two  days 
after  the  radical  Columbus  meeting  described,  in  an 
effort  to  show  that  the  majority  of  the  people  disagreed 
wTith  the  principles  expressed  in  that  first  gathering. 
According  to  the  Enquirer,  it  was  “a  large  and  en¬ 
thusiastic  meeting  without  distinction  of  party.” 
Strong  resolutions  were  passed  upholding  the  com¬ 
promise  as  “fair  and  equitable”  and  declaring  “that 
the  ultimatum  of  the  Nashville  convention  is  desperate 
and  revolutionary.”  The  “Honorable  Jas.  E.  Belser 
of  Alabama  addressed  the  meeting  for  one  and  one- 
half  hours  in  an  eloquent  and  patriotic  strain  that  fre¬ 
quently  brought  forth  long  continued  applause.”  A 
local  glee-club  then  sang  the  Star  Spangled  Banner, 

“Address  of  M.  J.  Wellborn,  To  the  Voters  of  the  Second  Con¬ 
gressional  District;  n.d.,  apparently  August,  1850.  It  is  notable  that 
Wellborn  had  displayed  some  sympathy  for  the  southern  movement  and 
that  he  represented  Southwest,  not  Upper  Georgia.  For  Cobb’s  lengthy 
address  see  the  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence,  pp.  196-206. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


283 


and  “the  audience  repaired  to  the  warehouse  of  Ruse, 
Patten  and  Brice,  where  a  sumptuous  barbecue  was 
prepared.”  After  dinner,  the  Reverend  A.  H.  Speer 
warned  against  the  danger  of  political  excitement  and 
controversy.  The  glee-club  again  appeared  upon  the 
stage  and  sang  the  patriotic  song,  ‘The  Red,  White 
and  Blue,’  and  with  three  cheers  for  the  Union  the 
meeting  adjourned  sine  die .”51 

The  climax  of  the  secessionist  campaign  promised 
to  come  late  in  August.  There  were  two  reasons  for 
this ;  first,  sufficient  time  would  have  elapsed  by  then 
to  count  upon  the  cumulative  effects  of  months  of  ener¬ 
getic  oratory  and,  second,  the  secessionists  hoped  to 
persuade  the  people  to  support  soon  thereafter  a  call 
for  a  state  convention.  As  the  prospects  for  the  pas¬ 
sage  of  the  California  bill  in  Congress  improved,  it 
began  to  be  assumed  that  Governor  Towns  would  sum¬ 
mon  a  convention  the  moment  the  bill  passed.  If  this 
body  were  called,  Georgia  would  be  the  first  southern 
state  to  proclaim  officially  its  attitude  towards  the  Clay 
compromise.  This  would  mean  that  much  of  the  suc¬ 
cess  of  the  whole  secession  movement  would  depend 
upon  her  action  at  this  critical  moment.  The  “Ultraists” 
throughout  the  lower  South  could  be  expected  to  join 
in  a  desperate  effort  to  prepare  the  Georgia  people  for 
the  great  decision. 

Southern-rights  meetings  were  held  on  August  6 
in  eight  or  ten  counties,  chiefly  in  Central  Georgia, 
preparatory  to  a  general  state  conclave,  to  be  as¬ 
sembled  at  Macon  on  August  22.  This  was  to  be  the 
grand  demonstration  at  which  Georgia  would  proclaim 
to  the  nation  her  readiness  for  secession.  The  seces¬ 
sionists  of  the  lower  South  concentrated  their  atten- 


51  Columbus  Enquirer,  July  20,  1850. 


284 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


tion  upon  it,  and  the  nation  was  watching.  Came  Rhett 
from  Carolina  and  Yancey  from  Alabama  for  the  good 
of  the  cause.  Elaborate  preparations  were  made  for 
a  great  barbecue,  and  delegates  were  invited  from  all 
over  the  state.  The  radical  press  called  for  an  atten¬ 
dance  of  fifty  thousand  and  claimed  up  to  the  last  mo¬ 
ment  that  at  least  fifteen  thousand  would  actually  be 
there. 

Accounts  varied  widely,  as  usual,  as  to  the  number 
who  were  present  when  the  great  day  dawned  and 
as  to  the  spirit  that  prevailed.  Two  of  the  Washing¬ 
ton  papers,  the  Southern  Press  (established  in  1850 
to  represent  the  secessionists)  and  the  Daily  Union, 
arranged  for  direct  telegraphic  reports  from  the  meet¬ 
ing.52  The  contrast  between  those  received  by  the  two 
papers  was  interesting.  In  comparing  them,  it  should 
be  remembered  that  the  Union  was  itself  a  Democratic 
journal  which  had  been  generally  sympathetic  with 
the  southern  movement.  The  wire  to  the  Southern 
Press  read  as  follows: 

Our  mass-meeting  has  just  adjourned.  It  was  one  of  the 
largest  and  most  enthusiastic  ever  held  in  this  state.  It  was 
addressed  by  Rhett,  Yancey  and  Cochran  of  Alabama,  and  Col¬ 
quitt,  Stiles,  Jones,  Gibson,  Raivley  and  Platt  of  Georgia. 
Resolutions  were  passed  urging  that  if  a  state  convention  is 
called  the  Georgia  delegates  should  at  once  leave  Congress  to 
consult  and  act  with  the  people.53 

The  first  wire  to  the  Union  was  brief  and  to  the 
point  and  was  followed  shortly  by  a  second  of  similar 
tenor : 

53  Through  telegraphic  connection  between  Macon  and  Washington 
was  first  established  in  August,  1850,  and  was  considered  a  very  remark¬ 
able  achievement. 

63  Southern  Press,  August  23,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


285 


Macon,  10:30  P.M. 

Aug.  22 : 

The  mass-meeting  held  by  the  disunionists  of  Georgia  proves 
to  be  a  failure.  Not  exceeding  1500  delegates  at  the  meeting 
all  told. 

Macon,  10:55  P.M. 

Mass-meeting  is  a  failure.  Not  more  than  1500  men  in 
town,  one-third  Union  men.  Only  300  arrived  by  the  railroads. 
Rhett,  Yancey,  Colquitt,  chief  speakers.  Disunion  openly 
avowed.  Some  delegates  repudiate  it.  Rhett  favors  temporary 
secession.54 

I 

The  question  of  the  attendance  at  this  meeting; 
was  considered  important  by  the  press  of  both  sides, 
as  it  was  considered  to  be  indicative  of  popular  feeling; 
in  the  state.  The  Southern  Press,  on  the  basis  of  the 
telegram  quoted,  termed  the  affair  a  “tremendous  out¬ 
pouring  of  the  people.”  Nothing,  it  declared,  could 
now  keep  Georgia  in  the  Union!  The  Savannah  Re¬ 
publican,  on  the  other  hand,  completely  disdained  the 
entire  meeting  and  agreed  with  the  report  to  the 
Union  that  only  from  one  thousand  to  fifteen  hundred 
attended.  This  was  the  estimate  of  the  other  conser¬ 
vative  papers  in  Georgia  and  was  repeated  by  those  of 
the  North.  A  friend  of  Cobb  reported  the  number 
present  as  eight  hundred  and  termed  the  meeting  “a 
stupendous  failure  so  felt  and  so  acknowledged.”  The 
Georgian,  speaking  for  the  local  “Ultraists,”  went  to 
the  other  extreme  and  claimed  that  there  were  no  less 
than  ten  thousand  present!  No  better  illustration  of 
the  chronic  unreliability  of  the  southern-rights  press 
in  the  state  could  be  afforded  than  this  exaggeration 
by  the  Savannah  daily.  The  editor  of  the  Savan¬ 
nah  Nezvs,  himself  rather  friendly  to  the  southern 
movement,  admitted  that  a  gentleman  returning  direct 


64  Daily  Union,  August  24,  1850. 


286 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


from  Macon  told  him  that  not  more  than  three  thou¬ 
sand  were  present.  Such  reports  toned  the  estimates 
of  the  South  Carolina  papers  down  to  “from  three  to 
five  thousand.”55 

The  significant  thing  about  the  Macon  meeting  was 
not  only  the  relatively  small  attendance,  but  the  fact 
that  here  for  the  first  time  in  Georgia  the  “Ultraists” 
came  out  openly  for  secession.  For  this  reason  it  rep¬ 
resents  one  of  the  turning  points  in  the  secession  move¬ 
ment  in  the  state.  In  the  first  place,  it  was  bound  to 
further  the  division  of  the  parties  along  the  Union 
and  secession  lines,  now  that  the  issue  was  made  clear, 
and  to  lead,  therefore,  to  that  practical  realignment 
of  parties  which  had  been  planned  in  the  legislature 
as  early  as  February.  In  the  second  place,  the  open 
approval  of  secession  was  bound  to  withdraw  from  the 
“Ultraists”  the  support  of  such  Democrats  as  had  been 
backing  them  up  to  this  time  in  the  mistaken  belief 
that  they  were  really  seeking  a  compromise  in  the 
form  of  the  Missouri  principle.  This  defection  of 
Democrats  from  the  southern  movement — once  they 
realized  that  it  was  really  a  secession  movement — also 
affected  the  Democratic  press,  notably  in  the  cases  of 
the  Savannah  Georgian  and  the  Savannah  News.  Rhett 
had  gone  marching  through  Georgia  only  to  spoil 
everything,  just  as  Hammond  had  feared  he  would. 

A  specific  illustration  of  reactions  to  the  Macon 
meeting  is  afforded  by  the  experience  of  Dr.  Arnold, 
who  wrote  Forney : 

55  On  the  Macon  mass-meeting  see  J.  C.  Butler,  Historical  Records  of 
Macon,  Georgia,  (1878),  pp.  194,  195;  Washington  Southern  Press, 
Aug.  23;  Daily  Union,  Aug.  24;  National  Intelligencer,  Aug.  24;  Phila¬ 
delphia  Public  Ledger,  Aug.  27;  Milledgeville  Federal  Union.  Aug.  28; 
Savannah  Georgian,  Aug.  23,  24;  Republican,  Aug.  23,  24;  News,  Aug. 
23,  24 ;  Chronicle,  Aug.  23,  24 ;  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  Aug.  29 ; 
J.  A.  Meriwether  to  Cobb,  Aug.  24,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  210. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


287 


At  Macon  the  cry  of  dis-union  was  first  raised,  and  the 
new  parties  had  therefore  to  be  formed.  I  and  Ward  decided 
that  as  all  the  Democratic  papers  had  gone  for  the  Ultras  and 
we  knew  the  people  would  not  support  this,  the  Whigs  would 
swamp  the  Democrats  unless  those  Democrats  who  were  true 
to  the  Union  made  this  entirely  clear.  ...  A  meeting  was 
called  in  Savannah.  .  .  .  One  of  the  leaders  was  a  young 

man,  (drilled  by  a  Carolina  gentleman  who  was  adjustant  to 
Mr.  Cheves)  introduced  resolutions,  but  I  threw  cold  water  on 
them.  Some  other  ginger-pop  lawyers  drew  up  Southern  rights 
resolutions  which  they  intended  to  cram  down  the  throats  of 
the  meeting.  There  was  a  great  excitement  when  these  were 
refused,  and  a  call  was  made  for  all  friends  of  the  South  to 
leave  the  hall !  I  was  very  angry  and  told  one  fellow  that  any 
man  who  said  I,  born  and  raised  on  the  spot,  was  not  in  favor 
of  Southern  rights  was  a  damned  Liar ! 

The  extremists  then  left  the  hall  to  adopt  their  own 
resolutions.  With  them,  added  Arnold,  were  the 
‘‘Mayor  and  all  twelve  Aldermen.  But  four  of  these 
were  South  Carolinians  and  you  have  had  experience 
with  that  kind  of  Democrats.”  The  rest  of  the  origi¬ 
nal  body  then  adopted  resolutions  accepting  the  com¬ 
promise  but  declaring  it  a  last  concession  by  the 
South.56 

Arnold  and  his  friend  Ward  now  became  active  in 
Lower  Georgia,  building  up  a  common  organization  of 
Union  Democrats  and  Whigs.  It  may  have  been 
through  their  influence  that  the  Georgian  began  to 
moderate  its  tone  to  such  extent  as  to  bring  it  into 
conflict  with  the  Federal  Union.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  clarifying  of  the  issue  now  made  it  possible  for 
two  actual  secessionist  papers,  the  Macon  Telegraph 
and  the  Columbus  Sentinel,  to  come  out  openly  for 
disunion.  Other  southern-rights  papers,  such  as  the 
Federal  Union,  still  refused  to  sanction  disunion  open- 

58  Arnold  to  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold  MSS.  Cf.  Georgian, 
July  24,  25;  News,  July  31,  1850. 


288 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


ly  at  the  same  time  that  they  condemned  the  compro¬ 
mise.  The  editors  of  the  Georgian,  the  News,  and  the 
Federal  Union  were  either  honestly  opposed  to  seces¬ 
sion,  or  else  they  possessed  too  healthy  a  respect  for 
the  feeling  of  the  majority  of  the  Democrats  to  demand 
it  openly.  In  some  cases  this  hesitancy  was  doubtless 
due  to  a  sincere  personal  opposition  to  the  final  destruc¬ 
tion  of  the  Union,  once  the  issue  was  divested  of  all 
the  suggestive  draperies  of  a  southern-rights  appeal, 
and  there  could  be  no  question  as  to  its  real  meaning- 

The  clarifying  of  the  issue  also  made  possible  a 
more  frank  discussion  of  the  secondary  questions  con¬ 
nected  with  secession.  These  were  problems  already 
debated  to  some  extent  in  1849,  such  as  “the  right  of 
secession,”  the  danger  of  civil  war,  the  advantages 
and  disadvantages  of  a  southern  confederacy,  the 
extent  of  the  spirit  of  southern  nationalism  then 
obtaining,  and  so  on.  The  conservatives,  Whigs 
and  Democrats,  assumed  that  there  was  some  “right 
of  secession,”  but  were  not  yet  clear  as  to  its 
nature.  The  Whigs  had  already  shown  signs  of  a 
belief  that  it  was  revolutionary  rather  than  constitu¬ 
tional  in  character,57  while  the  Democrats  were  in¬ 
clined  to  reverse  this  opinion58 — a  difference  of  view¬ 
point  that  was  to  involve  their  common  candidate  for 
the  governorship  in  some  difficulty  during  the  ensuing 
year.  Neither,  however,  desired  the  occasion  for  the 
exercise  of  the  right,  whatever  its  nature.  The  ex¬ 
tremists  usually  viewed  the  right  of  secession  as  a  con¬ 
stitutional  one  and  desired  the  necessary  occasion. 

The  “Ultraists”  were  inclined  to  believe  that  seces¬ 
sion  could  be  carried  out  peacefully,  though  they  were 

57  Note  the  resolutions  of  the  Columbus  Union  meeting,  summarized' 
above. 

58  See,  e.g.,  Rutherford  to  Cobb,  April  16,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephensr 
and  Cobb  Correspondence,  p.  190. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


289 


ready  to  force  war  if  necessary.59  The  conservatives, 
on  the  other  hand,  emphasized  the  danger  of  war  and 
appealed  to  the  economic  motives  naturally  averse  to  it. 
The  influence  of  the  economic  appeal  for  peace  was 
probably  more  powerful  in  prosperous  Georgia,  which 
had  much  to  lose  by  war  and  little  to  gain,  than  it  was 
in  economically  decadent  South  Carolina,  which  had 
less  to  lose  and — it  was  hoped — more  to  gain.60  “Seces¬ 
sion  is  bound  to  be  followed  by  civil  war  if  history 
tells  us  anything,”  wrote  a  Union  Democrat,  “and  will 
begin  with  the  first  gun  fired,  a  scene  of  discord  and 
calamity  the  world  before  never  beheld,  involving  our 
children  and  our  children’s  children.”61  “The  great¬ 
est  blessings  and  unparalleled  prosperity  (we  have 
enjoyed)  have  been  secured  by  the  Union  of  these 
states,”  wrote  another  Democrat,  “let  us  abandon  this 
Union  only  when  it  fails  to  secure  a  continuation  of 
this  prosperity.”62  A  franker  appeal  to  economic  in¬ 
terest  and  a  better  statement  of  the  motivating  idea 
that  may  have  been  in  the  minds  of  many  conservatives 
at  the  time,  can  hardly  be  imagined. 

Indeed,  it  was  this  discussion  of  the  dangers  of 
civil  war  that  brought  out  most  clearly  contemporary 
opinions  as  to  the  conserving  influences  of  economic 
prosperity.  It  has  been  pointed  out  in  a  preceding 
chapter  that  the  year  1850  marked  a  high  point  in 
prosperity  in  Georgia,  a  prosperity  based  upon  rising 
cotton  prices,  the  possession  of  relatively  unused  and 
promising  soils  in  some  parts  of  the  state,  a  rapid  in¬ 
crease  in  cotton  manufacturing,  an  extensive  railroad 

59  See,  e.g.,  W.  H.  Trescott,  The  Position  and  Cause  of  the  South 
(Charleston,  1850),  passim. 

00  See  chapter  i  for  a  general  discussion  of  this  theme. 

61  Letter  of  James  Clark,  February  15,  1851,  to  the  Committee,  Macon 
Union  Celebration,  p.  14. 

'“Letter  of  Asbury  Hull,  February  15,  1851,  ibid.,  p.  22. 


290 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


development,  and  the  general  stabilization  of  the 
state’s  finances.  Most  of  these  developments  had  been 
achieved  in  the  short  period  between  1845  and  1850, 
and  it  was  small  wonder  that  the  state  had  acquired  a 
preeminent  reputation  among  its  southern  sisters  and 
that  its  own  propertied  citizens  had  become  enthused 
with  a  spirit  of  “booster”  optimism.63  It  was  entirely 
natural,  therefore,  that  the  Georgian  quoted  above 
should  have  referred  to  the  “unparalleled  prosperity” 
that  had  been  enjoyed,  and  that  he  should  have  added 
the  remark  that  the  Union  should  be  abandoned  “only 
when  it  fails  to  secure  a  continuation  of  this  prosperi¬ 
ty.”  Some  contemporary  observers  from  without  the 
state  reached  the  conclusion  during  the  fall  of  1850 
that  it  was  this  desire  of  the  propertied  classes  to 
maintain  a  Union  that  had  brought  prosperity,  and  a 
desire  to  avoid  the  threat  to  that  prosperity  involved  in 
the  danger  of  civil  war,  which  determined  the  state’s 
conservative  position  in  the  crisis  of  1850. 

General  James  Hamilton  of  South  Carolina,  for 
instance,  passed  through  Central  Georgia  during  the 
fall  of  1850,  when  the  secession  movement  was  sup¬ 
posed  to  be  at  its  height.  He  found  the  state  “in  a 
condition  of  philosophic  calm,”  since  “thirteen  cents  a 
pound  for  cotton  was  a  powerful  contributor  to  make 
civil  war  and  revolution  exceedingly  distasteful  to 
her  people.”64  In  like  manner,  observers  in  South 
Carolina,  seeking  aid  from  Georgia,  feared  that  the 
good  times  there  would  defeat  their  purpose.  “Dis¬ 
union  feeling  in  Georgia,”  admitted  the  Columbia 
South  Carolinian,  “is  neutralized  by  the  high  price  of 

63  See  chapter  i  for  a  discussion  of  this  whole  situation. 

61  Letter  to  the  Charleston  Mercury,  published  in  the  Washington 
Republic,  December  2,  1850.  Hamilton  wrote  from  Texas,  November  11, 
and  probably  passed  through  Georgia  some  time  in  October,  1850,  i.e., 
in  the  midst  of  the  state  convention  campaign. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


291 


cotton,”65  Governor  Seabrook  wrote  Quitman  of 
Mississippi,  with  reference  to  the  South  in  general, 
that  “prosperity  makes  the  masses  indifferent  to  the 
crisis.”66  So,  too,  felt  northern  observers  in  Georgia. 
The  Savannah  correspondent  of  the  Boston  Courier, 
although  taking  the  other  side  in  the  general  political 
controversy  from  that  held  by  the  Carolina  critics, 
reached  just  the  same  conclusions  as  to  the  economic 
forces  at  work.  “It  is  very  fortunate  for  this  Union,” 
he  observed,  “that  cotton  is  thirteen  to  fourteen  cents  a 
pound,  instead  of  four  to  five.  There  is  now  a  state 
of  prosperity  they  do  not  care  to  disturb — but  were 
it  otherwise,  all  the  depression  in  trade  and  prices 
would  have  been  attributed  to  the  burden  of  the  Union 
and  to  the  baneful  effects  of  national  legislation  and 
northern  agitation.”67 

Other  problems  besides  those  relating  to  prosperity, 
the  right  of  secession,  and  the  dangers  of  civil  war, 
were  discussed  in  the  course  of  the  general  debate  that 
was  carried  on  through  the  summer  and  fall  of  1850 
and  during  the  next  year.  The  years  1850  and  1851, 
indeed,  constituted  a  time  of  education  during  which 

66  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  June  21,  1849.  The  Mobile  Daily 
Advertiser  made  the  same  analysis  of  the  situation  in  Alabama;  see  the 
National  Intelligencer,  Dec.  6,  1850. 

66  Seabrook  to  Quitman,  July  15,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

67  Such  contemporary  interpretations  of  the  economic  influences  at 
work  can  hardly  be  ignored,  in  the  light  of  all  attending  circumstances, 
even  though  the  claims  quoted  may  well  have  been  exaggerated.  Nor 
is  a  partially  economic  interpretation  of  Georgia’s  conservatism  in  1850 
necessarily  inconsistent  with  the  fact  of  Georgia’s  radicalism  in  another 
period  of  prosperity;  namely,  1860-1861.  Georgia  did,  to  be  sure,  secede 
despite  prosperity  in  this  later  period.  The  election  of  1860  was  viewed 
in  the  South  as  an  ultimate  threat  to  all  prosperity  based  upon  the  slave- 
labor  system  as  well  as  a  threat  to  the  whole  southern  social  order. 
Such  a  threat  obviously  overbalanced  any  interest  in  the  preservation 
of  the  immediate  prosperity  of  1860.  In  like  manner,  and  for  like 
reasons,  the  passage  by  Congress  of  the  Proviso  would  probably  have 
resulted  in  the  secession  of  Georgia  in  1850,  despite  the  prosperity  of 
that  year.  In  a  word,  prosperity  did  not  incline  Georgia  to  surrender, 
but  it  did  incline  her  to  compromise. 


292 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  people  of  the  South  first  went  to  school  to  study  all 
those  problems  which  they  later  attempted  to  solve  dur¬ 
ing  the  tragic  period  of  1860-1865.  There  was,  for  in¬ 
stance,  the  problem  of  a  “southern  confederacy”;  if 
the  South  did  secede  from  the  old  Union,  what  sort  of  a 
government  should  be  set  up  in  its  place  ?  Some  of  the 
Georgia  secessionists  believed,  with  Benning,  that  it 
should  be  a  “consolidated  republic,”  in  order  that  it 
should  protect  propertied  interests  and  possess  the  sta¬ 
bility  necessary  to  survive.  Others  who  would  have  de¬ 
sired  this,  to  be  sure,  did  not  believe  that  a  “consolidat¬ 
ed”  government  would  ever  be  approved  by  a  people  de¬ 
voted  to  “state  rights.”  Such  men  feared  that,  if  the 
old  Union  could  not  survive,  neither  could  a  “United 
States  South.”  “Even  if  a  Southern  Confederacy 
were  well  formed,”  wrote  a  Georgia  planter,  “there 
would  come  internal  quarrels,  a  second  disunion,  and 
we  should  exhibit  the  melancholy  aspect  of  a  parcel 
of  little  pitiful  republics.”68  It  was  a  similar  fear,  it 
will  be  remembered,  that  Alexander  Stephens  said 
kept  him  from  advocating  secession  that  year.69 

Some  extremists  thought  it  would  be  wise  for  the 
South  to  cultivate  economic  independence  of  the  North 
by  means  of  a  non-intercourse  policy  prior  to  demand¬ 
ing  political  independence,  in  case  this  economic 
pressure  brought  no  response  from  the  North.  This 
was  the  opinion  of  Senator  Berrien,  as  expressed  in 
his  letters  already  quoted,  and  the  same  view  was  held 
by  a  few  other  leading  men,  such  as  Governor  Collier 
of  Alabama.70  It  never  commanded  a  large  popular 

68  Letter  of  Eli  H.  Baxter  to  the  Committee,  February  19,  1851,  The 
Macon  Union  Celebration,  pp.  10,  11.  For  similar  opinion  in  South 
Carolina,  see  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  9,  1850.  Cf.  J.  C. 
Reed,  The  Brother’s  War,  p.  59. 

"  A.  H.  Stephens  to  L.  Stephens,  January  15,  1850,  Johnston  and 
Browne,  Alexander  Stephens,  p.  245. 

70  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  12,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


293 


following-  in  Georgia.  The  more  typical  view  ex¬ 
pressed  by  the  extremists  was  that  a  southern  con¬ 
federacy  would  become  at  once  a  great  economic 
.success  at  the  expense  of  northern  interests.71 

The  conservatives  predicted  dire  difficulties  for  a 
“United  States  South,”  and  claimed  that  even  the  sla¬ 
very  problem  would  be  complicated  rather  than  solved 
Ty  political  separation  from  the  North.  Slave  prop¬ 
erty,  they  urged,  would  be  far  more  insecure  in  a 
southern  “unconsolidated  republic”  than  in  the  present 
Union.72 

It  is  difficult  to  say  how  far  a  spirit  of  “southern 
nationalism”  was  developing  in  Georgia  as  a  result  of 
the  general  controversy,  and  no  estimate  whatever  can 
be  given  without  a  definition  of  terms.  It  is  no  easy 
task  to  mark  the  point  whereat  a  consciousness  of  sec¬ 
tional  identity  evolves  into  a  consciousness  of  national 
identity.  There  had  certainly  been  a  consciousness  of 
.sectional  identity  in  the  South  since  about  1820  and 
probably  even  before  that  date.  If  the  consciousness 
•of  national  feeling  is  to  be  limited  to  those  who,  in 
1850,  desired  immediate  secession  and  a  united  south¬ 
ern  confederacy,  the  number  in  Georgia  was  confined 
to  a  small  group  of  able  extremists,  of  whom  Benning 
was  the  best  type.  These  men  were  talking  openly  in 
1850  about  the  “United  States  South,”  and,  when  they 
said  “patriotism”,  they  meant  patriotism  for  the 
South.73  Between  such  men  and  the  old  Alabaman  who 
declared,  “I  do  not  wish  to  survive  the  Union! — My 
Country  Now!  My  Country  Forever!”,74  there  was 

"Augusta  Constitutionalist,  quoted  in  and  approved  by  the  Columbus 
Times,  January  30,  1849. 

"Eli  H.  Baxter  to  the  Committee,  Macon  Union  Celebration,  p.  11. 

73  See  Savannah  News,  February  2,  1850. 

74  Montgomery  Daily  Alabama  Journal,  December  16,  1850.  Simi¬ 
larly  passionate  devotion  in  Georgia  to  the  Union  will  be  noted  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  state  convention  of  December. 


294 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  great  mass  of  the  people,  who  held  all  shades  of 
opinion  varying  from  one  extreme  to  the  other.  The 
sense  of  nationalism  which  animated  the  great  majority 
of  Georgians  in  1850,  however,  was  the  old  loyalty  for 
the  old  Union. 

One  must  remember  that  the  majority  of  the  Dem¬ 
ocrats  in  Central  and  Lower  Georgia  were,  as  has  been 
noted,  southern-rights  men  in  the  moderate  sense  that 
they  favored  southern  political  unity  and  were  often 
excited  in  their  denunciation  of  the  North.  That  men 
were  not  secessionists  did  not  mean  that  they  lacked 
feeling  in  the  whole  matter.  There  was  sectional  feel¬ 
ing  in  plenty.  In  Savannah,  early  in  August,  a  north¬ 
ern  man  expressed  certain  ideas  “not  altogether  south¬ 
ern  in  sentiment,”  and  handbills  were  promptly  posted 
announcing  the  hour  at  which  he  would  be  tarred  and 
feathered!  The  News  cautioned  against  such  senti¬ 
ments  “just  now,”  and  advised  the  gentleman  concern¬ 
ed  “to  make  a  speedy  return  to  his  boasted  clime  of  the 
North.”75 

The  most  interesting  expression  of  popular  indig¬ 
nation — or  hysteria,  as  one  wishes  to  view  it — occurr¬ 
ed  at  Macon  in  August,  1850.  Here  the  Citizen,  edited 
by  one,  Dr.  L.  F.  W.  Andrews,  and  established  March 
28  of  that  year,  had  been  a  bitter  opponent  of  the  sou¬ 
thern-rights  movement.  In  the  middle  of  August,  it 
greatly  excited  the  people  by  publishing  letters  from  a 
certain  Hanleiter,  of  Atlanta,  in  which  he  condemned 
the  domestic  slave  trade  and  expressed  a  hope  that 
the  slave  sales  depot  there  would  be  “razed  to  the 
ground.”  This  brought  forth  the  serious  charge  that 
the  Citizen  was  an  abolitionist  paper,  established  se¬ 
cretly  in  Macon  and  subsidized  by  the  northern  socie- 

u  South  Carolinian,  August  15,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


295 


ties  in  connection  with  the  political  crisis  then  at  hand. 
Just  at  this  time  occurred  the  radical  Macon  mass 
meeting  of  August  22,  and  the  Citizen  proceeded  to 
denounce  that  meeting  most  scathingly.  This  was  too 
much  under  the  circumstances.  A  special  nonpartisan 
meeting  was  called,  and  a  committee  of  thirteen  waited 
upon  Andrews,  the  editor,  demanding  the  name  of  his 
Atlanta  correspondent.  Meanwhile,  a  crowd  gathered 
outside  and  threatened  to  lynch  Andrews.  Dr.  Collins, 
of  Macon,  saved  him  from  the  mob  only  by  eliciting 
the  promise  that  he  would  close  the  paper  and  leave 
Macon  within  ten  days.  The  Chronicle  declared  this 
episode  a  ‘"high  handed  outrage”  against  the  rights  of 
a  citizen  and  the  freedom  of  the  press,  but  the  radical 
editors  applauded  it  and  intimated  that  the  Chronicle 
itself  should  receive  like  treatment.76  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  the  Citizen  resumed  publication  just  a  fortnight 
later. 

Towards  the  end  of  August  there  was  a  temporary 
lull  in  the  controversy  in  Georgia,  as  all  eyes  turned  to 
Washington  to  watch  the  closing  scenes  of  the  con¬ 
gressional  drama.  After  a  long  summer  of  debates, 
the  separate  bills  of  the  “Omnibus”  were  now  assured 
of  acceptance — “the  passengers  would  all  arrive.”  Both 
moderates  and  secessionists  in  Georgia  desired  this, 
the  first  in  order  to  have  the  compromise  finally  adopt¬ 
ed  ;  the  latter,  because  the  passage  of  one  of  the  bills, 
that  admitting  California,  would  make  it  obligatory 
upon  the  Governor  to  call  a  state  convention. 

Towns  was  ready.  Indeed,  he  had  sent  a  special 
representative  to  Washington  who  was  to  bring  him 
post  haste  an  official  copy  of  the  California  bill  as  soon 

70  The  incident  received  much  attention  in  both  the  North  and  the 
South;  see  the  Georgian,  August  24;  the  South  Carolinian,  August  29; 
the  Chronicle,  August  30;  the  Boston  Liberator,  September  20,  1850;  etc. 


296 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


as  it  passed.  Things  now  happened  quickly  at  the 
capitol,  for  the  Texas  and  California  bills  passed  Sep¬ 
tember  7,  the  Utah  measure  September  9,  and  the  fugi¬ 
tive  slave  bill  September  12.  The  news  of  the  Cali¬ 
fornia  law  reached  Georgia  on  the  tenth,  and  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Union  (generally  viewed  as  Towns’  organ)  an¬ 
nounced  on  the  seventeenth  that  the  Governor  would 
issue  a  call  for  the  convention  as  soon  as  his  agent  ar¬ 
rived  with  the  official  copy.  This  gentleman  reached 
the  Governor’s  home  in  Milledgeville  on  September 
23,  and  Towns  promptly  issued  the  long  awaited  sum¬ 
mons. 

The  proclamation  repeated  Towns’  opinions  on 
northern  aggressions  and  the  need  for  calm  but  de¬ 
termined  action  in  Georgia.  It  called  the  convention, 
as  provided  for  by  law,  to  meet  at  the  capitol  on  Decem¬ 
ber  10.  The  elections  were  to  be  held  on  November  25, 
exactly  as  the  usual  elections  for  the  legislature,  save 
that  the  representation  of  each  county  was  to  be 
doubled.77  “In  the  hour  of  danger,”  read  the  gover¬ 
nor’s  appeal,  “when  your  institutions  are  in  jeopardy — 
your  feelings  wantonly  outraged ;  your  social  organiza¬ 
tion  derided ;  and  the  Federal  Constitution  violated  by 
a  series  of  aggressive  measures,  all  tending  to  the  con¬ 
summation  of  one  object,  the  abolition  of  slavery  .  .  . 
it  well  becomes  you  to  assemble,  to  deliberate,  and  coun¬ 
sel  together  for  your  mutual  protection  and  safety.”78 

This  proclamation  was  the  opening  gun  in  the  final 
battle  for  secession,  both  in  Georgia  and  in  the  lower 
South  as  a  whole,  and  it  was  naturally  followed  by  a 
volley  from  both  sides.  The  entire  proclamation  of 

"  For  text  of  the  convention  law  see  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the 
Georgia  Convention,  1850,  p.  27. 

™  Ibid.,  pp.  27,  28;  Letter  Books  of  the  Georgia  Governors,  1850; 
for  Towns’  plans  for  his  proclamation,  see  Columbia  South  Carolinian, 
September  10,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


297 


over  one  thousand  words  was  wired  directly  from 
Macon  to  Washington,  where  it  was  being  anxiously 
awaited.  The  Southern  Press  immediately  hailed  it 
as  the  harbinger  of  final  action.  Georgia  now  showed, 
it  declared,  that  “the  point  of  endurance  has  been 
passed.  The  destiny  of  the  South  is  decided.  She  will 
not  submit.  .  .  .  The  cotton  states  will  all  unite  with 
Georgia.  So  will  the  rest  of  the  slave-holding  states. 
The  North  has  a  last  chance  to  reconsider.”  The  radi  ¬ 
cal  papers  in  South  Carolina  and  the  Gulf  states  re¬ 
acted  in  a  similar  manner.  The  Columbia  South  Caro¬ 
linian  and  the  Charleston  News  believed  that  “the  as¬ 
sembling  of  the  Georgia  Convention  will  probably  be 
the  first  step  in  the  vindication  of  Southern  honor,”  and 
were  sure  that  the  conventions  and  legislatures  soon 
to  be  called  in  South  Carolina,  Mississippi,  and  Ala¬ 
bama  would  follow  her.79  Rhett  declared  that  Georgia 
would  “lead  off,”  while  Hammond  wrote  Fouche  that 
he  believed  Georgia  was  “entitled  to  lead  the  South 
because  of  her  prompt  action  and  because  of  her 
strength  and  position.”80  There  was  significant  talk 
about  holding  the  next  session  of  the  southern  conven¬ 
tion  at  Milledgeville. 

Whig  papers  in  the  North  generally  derided 
Towns’  call,  declared  that  “we  do  not  tremble  in  our 
boots  in  view  of  this  new  crisis  got  up  by  the  Quattle- 
bums  of  the  South”;  but  some  conservative  Demo¬ 
cratic  papers  were  seriously  worried  and  besought 
Georgia  to  pause  and  contemplate  before  acting.81 

79  Southern  Press,  in  Washington  Union,  September  25;  South  Caro¬ 
linian,  September  27,  1850. 

80  Hammond  to  Fouche  and  Committee,  Silver  Bluff,  South  Carolina, 
September  26,  1850,  Hammond  MSS. 

81  Columbus  Ohio  Statesman,  September  31 ;  Washington  Union, 
October  1,  1850. 


298 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Within  Georgia,  the  more  moderate  of  the  south¬ 
ern-rights  editors  welcomed  the  Governor’s  call  as  a 
means  of  securing  either  concession  in  the  North  or 
secession  in  the  South.  The  more  extreme  editors 
openly  welcomed  the  coming  convention  as  a  means 
to  disunion.  “The  continuance  of  the  Union  is  no 
longer  problematical,”  announced  the  Columbus  Times, 
“it  is  now  virtually  dissolved.  There  is  no  time  to  be 
lost.  Draw  your  swords  and  throw  away  your  scab¬ 
bards!”82 

The  response  of  the  Georgia  Whig  and  Union 
Democratic  papers  was  vigorous  and  emphatic.  The 
convention  should  “never  have  been  called”;  “it  would 
be  a  farce”;  “it  would  have  nothing  to  do  but  ad¬ 
journ” — such  were  the  typical  comments.83  “The 
proclamation,”  declared  Holsey  in  the  Athens  Banner, 
“is  but  a  solemn  mummery  under  the  existing  calm  of 
public  opinion.”84 

So  in  September,  as  during  the  preceding  spring, 
the  opposing  editors  differed  widely  in  their  published 
estimates  of  popular  feeling  in  the  state.  The  procla¬ 
mation,  which  the  Times  announced  had  “virtually” 
dissolved  the  Union,  was  dismissed  by  the  Banner  as 
“a  mummery  under  the  existing  calm  of  public  opin¬ 
ion.”  The  events  of  spring  and  summer  had  already 
shown  that  the  more  radical  papers  had  little  influence 
upon  the  public  and  were,  therefore,  not  usually  to  be 
trusted  in  their  estimates  of  public  opinion.  The  con¬ 
servative  journals  had  proved  more  reliable  in  this 
respect  and  were,  therefore,  probably  more  to  be  trust¬ 
ed  in  their  estimates  of  popular  feeling  in  September. 

83  Columbus  (Georgia)  Times,  in  Washington  Union,  September  25, 
1850. 

83  Opinions  of  several  prominent  Whig  journals,  as  given  in  the 
Chronicle,  October  29,  1850. 

84  Quoted  in  the  Chronicle,  September  28,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


299 


Since  the  editors  in  both  camps,  however,  doubtless 
shared  a  natural  desire  to  appear  confident  before  the 
public,  it  is  well  to  examine  the  estimates  of  public 
opinion  exchanged  in  confidence  between  the  leaders 
of  each  group. 

In  such  private  correspondence  with  others  of  their 
own  party  the  politicians  had  little  or  no  motive  for 
exaggeration  or  distortion.  The  letters  to  Howell 
Cobb,  written  from  Upper  Georgia  between  August  24 
and  October  5,  the  period  before  the  convention  cam¬ 
paign  had  really  begun,  displayed  complete  confidence 
in  a  coming  Union  victory.  Writing  as  early  as 
August  24,  Judge  James  Meriwether  declared  that  if 
Towns  called  the  Convention  the  disunionists  “would 
not  muster  a  corporal’s  guard.”  If  they  then  attempted 
violence,  he  was  ready  to  fight  against  them,  and  he 
was  persuaded  that  this  was  “the  sentiment  of  nine 
tenths  of  the  Whigs  and  three  fourths  of  the  Demo¬ 
crats”85  in  his  district.  William  Woods,  of  Dahlonega, 
wrote  on  September  15:  “I  have  bin  mixen  amongst 
the  people,”  and  “I  think  the  majority  of  my  section 
.  .  .  are  willing  to  abide  the  action  of  Congress,” 
though  “nearly  all  the  leading  Democrats  (are)  op¬ 
posed88.  .  .  .”  “The  people  are  not  ready  to  sacrifice 
the  best  government  ever  established,”  opined  L.  J. 
Glenn  of  McDonaugh  on  September  21,  “to  redress 
‘imaginary  evils’  existing  in  a  distempered  fancy  at  a 
distance  of  three  thousand  miles  or  more.”87  Cobb 
himself,  upon  surveying  the  whole  field  immediately 
after  his  return  to  the  state,  wrote  Lamar  that,  while 
“we  shall  have  a  most  exciting  and  angry  contest  in 

85  Meriwether  to  Cobb,  August  24,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  p.  211. 

86  Woods  to  Cobb,  September  15,  1850,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  pp.  212-213. 

87  L.  J.  Glenn  to  Cobb,  September  21,  1850,  ibid.,  p.  213. 


300 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  state  and  in  some  sections  a  doubtful  one  ...  I 
entertain  no  doubt  that  we  shall  have  a  large  majority 
of  the  convention.  .  .  .”88 

In  contrast  to  this,  there  has  been  preserved  an 
interesting  private  correspondence  between  no  lesser 
leaders  of  the  secessionist  group  than  W.  B.  Seabrook, 
governor  of  South  Carolina,  and  G.  W.  Towns,  gover¬ 
nor  of  Georgia.  South  Carolina  had  come  under  the 
control  of  the  “cooperationists”  by  the  fall  of  1850, 
and  Seabrook  was  anxious  to  know  just  what  chances 
there  were  for  assistance  to  his  state  in  case  she  se¬ 
ceded.  His  chief  hopes  lay  in  Mississippi  and  in  Geor¬ 
gia.  On  September  20,  accordingly,  Seabrook  wrote 
Towns  asking  what  the  prospects  were  that  the  coming 
state  convention  would  lead  Georgia  out  of  the  Union 
and  declared  that  South  Carolina  was  ready  to  go  as 
soon  as  her  sister  gave  the  sign.89  The  correspondence 
was  strictly  secret.  Towns  replied  from  Milledgeville 
on  September  25,  just  two  days  after  issuing  his  pro¬ 
clamation,  and  at  the  very  time  that  such  papers  as  the 
Sentinel  and  the  Telegraph  were  declaring  that  the 
convention  would  dissolve  the  Union.  He  explained 
to  Seabrook  the  great  difference  between  South  Caro¬ 
lina  and  Georgia.  “It  is  disgraceful,”  he  admitted  of 
his  own  state,  “that  probably  1% o  of  the  old  states 
rights  group90  are  submissionists.”  These  men,  he 
added,  appeal  to  the  old  Union  men,91  and  hence  it 
can  be  seen  “how  fearful  the  odds  against  which  we 
are  struggling.”  Indeed,  he  had  to  confess  that  this 
struggle  in  Georgia  was  “cheerless  and  discouraging.” 

88  Howell  Cobb  to  J.  B.  Lamar,  Athens,  October  10,  1850,  ibid., 
p.  215. 

89  Seabrook  to  Towns,  September  20,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

90  The  old  Whig  or  Troup  party  of  the  thirties;  see  chapter  iii. 

91  The  old  Democratic  or  Clark  party  of  the  thirties ;  see  chapter  iii. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


301 


Under  the  circumstances,  he  could  but  suggest  that  no 
action  whatever  be  taken  in  South  Carolina  until  after 
the  election  to  the  Georgia  convention.  Such  action 
must  be  avoided,  lest  it  increase  the  ever-present  dis¬ 
like  of  the  Georgia  people  for  their  sister  state  and 
thus  destroy  what  hope  the  faithful  still  have  of 
cooperating  with  Carolina.92 

The  contrast  between  the  blatant  boasting  of  the 
radical  papers  at  the  time,  and  this  private  confession 
by  a  central  leader  of  the  Georgia  secessionist  group 
seems  a  significant  one.  It  becomes  even  more  signi¬ 
ficant  when  one  recalls  all  the  associated  circum¬ 
stances — the  unreliable  record  of  the  radical  press, 
the  spring  elections,  the  steady  optimism  of  the  con¬ 
servatives,  and,  finally,  the  overwhelming  victory  of 
the  Union  men,  which  lay  just  ahead  in  the  convention 
elections.  The  masses  of  the  Georgia  people  continued 
to  oppose  or  to  be  indifferent  to  the  secessionist  appeal 
during  the  summer  and  fall  of  1850,  as  they  had  during 
the  preceding  winter  and  spring. 

The  remainder  of  Seabrook’s  correspondence  relat¬ 
ing  to  Georgia  demonstrated  not  only  his  acceptance  of 
Towns’  estimate  of  sentiment  there,  but  also  the  im¬ 
portance  of  the  position  which  Georgia  might  see  fit 
to  take  with  regard  to  the  whole  sectional  movement. 
Seabrook  replied  on  October  8,  assuring  Towns  that 
he  would  hold  things  back  in  South  Carolina  so  as  to 
“conciliate”  Georgia,  the  while  he  “stimulated”  the 
other  states.  He  submitted  to  Towns  his  proposed 
proclamation  calling  the  South  Carolina  legislature, 
desiring  assurance  before  issuing  it  that  it  would  not 
hurt  the  cause  in  Georgia.93  Meanwhile,  he  had  just 

“Towns  to  Seabrook,  September  25,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

83  Seabrook  to  Towns,  October  8,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 


302 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


heard  from  Governor  Quitman  of  Mississippi,  who  re¬ 
ported  to  headquarters,  so  to  speak,  that  a  convention 
would  probably  be  called  in  that  state  to  move  for 
secession.94  Prospects  seemed  good  for  Mississippi. 
Georgia,  then,  was  the  stumbling  block.  Seabrook  was 
tactful  and  did  not  criticize  in  his  letters  to  Towns,  but 
he  wrote  a  confidant  that  action  waited  upon  Georgia 
and  that  she  was  most  unreliable.  “I  shall  wait  the 
movement  in  Georgia  and  one  or  two  other  slave-hold¬ 
ing  states,”  he  declared,  “before  I  commit  South  Caro¬ 
lina.  ...  As  soon  as  it  shall  be  known  that  our  sister 
state  has  been  seconded  by  Mississippi  and  Alabama, 
or  Virginia  and  Florida,  the  period  will  have  arrived 
for  the  Palmetto  state  to  do  her  duty.”  But  he  added, 
“my  word  for  it,  that  Georgia  acts  indecisively  or 
makes  a  retrograde  move.”95 

Seabrook  had  previously  written  Quitman  in  July 
expressing  a  belief  that,  if  Mississippi  and  South 
Carolina  both  seceded,  Georgia  would  be  bound  to 
he  drawn  into  the  movement;96  but  his  September 
and  October  letters  conveyed  no  such  faith.  Towns’ 
fetters  had  clearly  declared  that  precipitate  action  in 
South  Carolina  would  antagonize  rather  than  invite 
cooperation  from  Georgia.  So  while  extremist  papers 
were  loudly  proclaiming  that  Georgia  would  “lead  off,” 
Georgia,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  seemed  to  the  well  in¬ 
formed  secessionists  a  stumbling  block  in  the  way  of 
those  states  already  prepared  to  go.97 

M  Quitman  to  Seabrook,  September  29,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

95  Seabrook  to  T.  A.  Leland,  September  18,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

96  Seabrook  to  Quitman,  July  15,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 

97 1.  Seibels,  of  Montgomery,  wrote  Hammond  to  ask  what  South 
Carolina  would  do  if  Georgia  “backed  out.”  He  thought  that  if  Georgia 
would  act  “that  would  at  once  determine  the  course  of  Alabama,  Missis¬ 
sippi  and  Florida.”  Seibels  to  Hammond,  September  19,  1850,  Ham¬ 
mond  MSS. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


303 


Meanwhile,  the  convention  campaign  was  on  in  the 
'“Empire  State.”  It  was  bound,  as  Cobb  put  it,  to  be 
fierce  and  exciting,  both  because  of  the  importance  of 
the  issue  and  because  the  secessionists  made  up  to  some 
extent  in  ability,  energy,  and  vociferousness  for  what 
they  lacked  in  numbers.  The  conflict  in  Georgia  be¬ 
came  the  center  for  all  eyes  in  the  Union.  There  was 
less  interest  taken  in  South  Carolina,  at  least  tempora¬ 
rily,  because  no  one  doubted  the  feeling  there;  and, 
while  Mississippi  shared  with  Georgia  the  critical  and 
decisive  position  in  the  lower  South,  a  special  conven¬ 
tion  was  to  meet  in  Georgia  at  a  time  when  only  the 
regular  legislature  would  be  in  session  in  the  other 
state.  The  position  of  Georgia,  moreover,  was  con¬ 
sidered  peculiarly  important  because  of  her  apparent 
economic  superiority  to  most  of  the  other  southern 
states. 

All  public  expressions  of  opinion  in  South  Caro¬ 
lina  continued  to  declare  great  hope  for  the  sister  state 
and  ofttimes  recognized  her  economic  importance  to  the 
southern  movement.  Uncertainty  concerning  her  final 
stand,  however,  was  sometimes  publicly  admitted. 
There  was  the  Charleston  official,  for  instance,  who 
proposed  the  following  toast  at  a  dinner  to  General 
Hammond,  at  which  Georgians  were  present : 

Our  noble  sister,  the  state  of  Georgia,  distinguished  for  her 
statesmen,  famed  for  her  extended  agriculture,  equally  cele¬ 
brated  for  wide-spread  internal  improvements  and  manufac¬ 
tures,  foremost  in  advancing  the  mechanic  arts  :98 — when  called 
on  to  stand  up  in  defense  of  Southern  rights,  where  will  she 
he  found ? 

To  which  eulogy  a  Georgian  present  replied  with  the 
somewhat  ambiguous  toast : 

South  Carolina :  Ever  true — she  need  never  be  hasty." 

68  For  the  economic  basis  of  this  praise,  see  chapter  i. 

99  Washington  Republic,  November  28,  1850. 


304 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


While  Carolina  continued  her  efforts  at  concilia¬ 
tion  with  the  sister  state,  the  old  distrust  of  “Pal- 
mettodom”  persisted  and  grew  in  Georgia  in  propor¬ 
tion  to  the  growing  intensity  of  the  secession  contro¬ 
versy.  This  distrust  continued  to  embarrass  the  seces¬ 
sionists.  Towns’  warning  to  Seabrook  that  South 
Carolina  must  be  kept  below  the  level  of  Georgia’s 
political  horizon  was  a  timely  one.  Conservative  Geor¬ 
gians  strongly  suspected,  from  articles  appearing  in 
the  Charleston  Mercury,  that  South  Carolina  was  at 
the  bottom  of  the  whole  secession  movement,  and  they 
warned  the  people,  as  usual,  not  to  allow  “insolent 
Palmettodom”  to  “make  a  cat’s  paw  of  Georgia.”  In¬ 
deed,  the  collusion  of  the  governors  was  suspected  at 
the  very  time  that  they  were  exchanging  the  corres¬ 
pondence  noted.100  The  voters  were  reminded  that 
“our  state  has  been  treated  habitually  with  the  most 
sovereign  contempt  by  the  chivalry,  until  they  con¬ 
curred  recently  in  the  idea  of  making  a  subordinate 
use  of  us.  Only  then  do  they  declare:  ‘The  South 
hangs  her  hope  upon  her  as  the  Keynote  State.’  ”101 
Senator  Butler  of  South  Carolina  urged  Seabrook  to 
send  representatives  to  the  Georgia  convention,  and 
added  that  “Surely,  at  this  time,  an  unnatural  jealousy 
should  not  prevent  these  states  .  .  .  from  acting  to¬ 
gether.”102  Seabrook,  however,  was  too  well  acquaint¬ 
ed  with  the  real  situation  in  Georgia,  by  virtue  of  his 
correspondence  with  Towns,  to  attempt  to  send  such  a 
representative.  South  Carolina  had  indeed  sent  a  rep- 

100  See  Macon  Journal  in  the  Chronicle,  September  20,  1850. 

101  Chronicle,  October  12 ;  see  also  Macon  Journal  in  the  same,  Sep¬ 
tember  20;  Letter  of  Eli  Warren,  February  14,  1851,  to  the  Committee. 
Macon  Union  Celebration,  p.  16. 

101  A.  P.  Butler  to  Seabrook,  October  22,  1850,  Seabrook  MSS. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


305 


resentative  to  the  state  convention  of  Mississippi  the 
year  before,  but  Georgia  was  another  matter.  Ham¬ 
mond,  who  was  a  keener  observer  than  Butler,  refused 
an  invitation  sent  him  by  Samuel  Ray  to  write  articles 
for  the  Macon  Telegraph  during  the  state  convention 
campaign.  He  based  his  refusal  on  the  ground  that 
it  was  unwise  for  any  South  Carolinian  to  “interfere” 
in  Georgia  politics.103 

It  was  unfortunate  for  Carolina  that  the  old  trade 
rivalry  between  Charleston,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
Macon  and  Savannah,  on  the  other,  which  was  per¬ 
haps  the  chief  economic  factor  in  the  dislike  for  “Pal- 
mettodom,”  should  have  continued  just  at  a  time  when 
the  latter’s  political  ambitions  demanded  conciliation 
with  Georgia.  Less  than  three  years  before  had  come 
the  deliberate  effort  of  Charleston  to  tap  the  Georgia 
Central  Railroad  above  Savannah,  an  episode  which 
had  created  considerable  feeling  in  1847.104  Even  at  the 
height  of  the  crisis  in  1850,  a  Charleston  editor,  in 
reporting  that  Upper  Georgia  was  warming  up  to  his 
radical  political  appeals,  added  significantly  that  “now 
is  the  time  for  your  direct  tradesmen  of  Charleston  to 
take  advantage  of  this  feeling.”105  Georgians  returned 
this  compliment  by  deliberately  planning  in  some 
cases  to  divert  most  of  the  Charleston  trade  to  Macon 
and  Savannah  the  moment  that  South  Carolina  se¬ 
ceded.  This  could  be  done  easily  enough,  it  was  be¬ 
lieved,  if  the  Carolina  coast  were  to  be  blockaded  by 
the  federal  naval  forces.  It  was  also  hoped  that  Caro¬ 
lina  currency  could  be  driven  out  of  the  state,  since 
Georgians  would  presumably  not  wish  to  hold  it  after 

103  Hammond  to  Ray,  October  20,  1850,  Hammond  MSS. 

10f  See  chapter  i. 

105  Charleston  News,  in  the  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  August  31, 
1850. 


306 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  other  state  had  seceded.106  General  James  Hamil¬ 
ton  and  Bishop  Capers,  of  the  Methodist  Church,  both 
warned  South  Carolina  of  the  seriousness  of  the  inten¬ 
tion  to  secure  the  Charleston  trade.  Indeed,  the  exis¬ 
tence  of  this  desire  in  parts  of  Georgia  was  generally 
recognized  throughout  the  South.107 

Editors  outside  of  South  Carolina  and  Georgia 
were  generally  convinced  that  a  Union  victory  in  Geor¬ 
gia  was  probable,  if  not  certain.  The  importance  of 
the  result  was  also  generally  recognized.  “The  anxi¬ 
ous  eyes  of  the  whole  nation,”  declared  the  national 
organ  of  the  Democracy  in  October,  “are  fixed  upon 
Georgia  and  New  York.  These  are  the  two  great 
battlefields  of  southern  and  northern  excitement.”108 
The  usual  prediction  as  to  the  outcome  in  Georgia  was 
that  there  would  be  much  talk  but  no  action  looking 
towards  disunion.  “Georgia  will  cave  in,  back  out, 
and  swallow  her  big  words  of  treason,”  wrote  the 
Washington  correspondent  of  a  New  York  daily.109 

Within  Georgia  itself,  meanwhile,  a  number  of  in¬ 
teresting  developments  had  taken  place  during  the 
early  fall.  The  beginning  of  the  convention  campaign 
was  concomitant  with  the  return  of  the  state’s  congres 
sional  delegation.  This  brought  Berrien  and  James  W. 
Jackson  to  Savannah  to  urge  “non-intercourse.”  It 

108  Marietta  Union,  in  Savannah  News,  December  17,  1850.  The  News 
declared  that  the  Union  “gave  some  good  hints.” 

107  See,  e.g.,  Jackson  (Mississippi)  Flag  of  the  Union,  March  7,  1851; 
Richmond  Daily  Whig,  December  17,  1850 ;  Hamilton’s  warnings  are  in 
the  Washington  Republic,  December  2,  1850. 

108  Washington  Union,  October  16.  1850.  Three  large  northern 
dailies,  the  New  York  Express,  the  Baltimore  Sun,  and  the  Boston 
Courier,  considered  the  situation  in  Georgia  important  enough  to  justify 
the  maintenance  of  regular  correspondents  in  Savannah  through  the  fall. 

109  New  York  Herald,  September  17 ;  see  also  New  York  Express  and 
New  York  Evening  Post  in  Savannah  News,  October  2,  October  10; 
Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  September  19,  November  27 ;  Columbus 
Ohio  State  Journal,  November  5;  Natchez  (Mississippi)  Courier,  Sep¬ 
tember  20,  1850,  etc. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


307 


also  brought  Wellborn  to  Southwest  Georgia,  Cobb  and 
Hackett  to  Upper  Georgia,  and  Toombs  and  Stephens 
to  Central  Georgia — all  to  defend  the  compromise  and 
to  decry  disunion.  The  districts  represented  by  the 
last  four  named,  however,  were  practically  certain  to 
remain  conservative  before  they  returned, — those  of 
Cobb  and  Hackett  being  dominated  by  Union  Demo¬ 
crats  cooperating  with  the  Whigs,  and  those  of  Toombs 
and  Stephens  always  having  a  safe  Whig  majority,  no 
matter  what  the  Democrats  might  do.  The  only  un¬ 
certain  areas  in  the  state  were  those  in  the  strip  of 
four  or  five  Democratic  counties  lying  athwart  Central 
Georgia,110  several  counties  in  the  Pine  Barrens,  and 
the  cities  of  Columbus  and  Savannah.  There  was  un¬ 
certainty  about  the  first  because  these  Democratic 
counties  followed  their  leaders  with  a  tenacity  that 
transcended  all  ordinary  economic  influences,111  and 
many  of  the  leaders  of  the  Democracy  were  seces¬ 
sionists.  There  were  one  or  two  counties  in  the  Pine 
Barrens  of  which  this  also  held  true,  and  there  was 
some  uncertainty  as  to  how  the  degraded  and  ignor¬ 
ant  “piney-woods  people”  in  this  region  would  react  to 
the  violent  anti-Yankee  and  anti-Negro  appeal  which 
would  feature  the  radical  campaign.  There  was  un¬ 
certainty  about  Columbus  because  of  the  unusual  num¬ 
ber  of  extremists  resident  there ;  and  uncertainty  about 
Savannah  because  that  city  contained  considerable 
numbers  of  South  Carolinians  and  European  immi¬ 
grants.  The  Berrien  element  might  also  prove  to  have 
some  strength  in  the  Senator’s  home  county,  Chatham, 
which  included  Savannah. 

110  See  Map  No.  S,  p.  109. 

111  See  chapter  iii. 


308 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Stated  in  terms  of  social  classes,112  an  analysis  of 
the  campaign  and  its  results  reveals  that  the  groups 
most  apt  to  be  swayed  by  the  secessionist  appeal  were : 
( 1 )  Democratic  partisans  who  had  never  outgrown  the 
old  Georgia  political  habit  of  following  personal  leaders 
regardless  of  issues;113  (2)  the  lower  middle  classes  in 
the  cities,  who  might  own  one  or  two  slaves  and  who 
read  local  secessionist  papers;  (3)  able  lawyers,  edi¬ 
tors  and  politicians  in  the  cities,  who  either  felt  that 
they  “saw  further”  into  the  future  than  could  the  ma¬ 
jority  or,  else,  hoped  to  attain  political  prominence  at 
the  head  of  the  new  movement;114  and  (4)  the  other 
extreme  in  the  social  scale,  the  illiterate  “poor  whites” 
of  the  Pine  Barrens  belt,  who,  even  if  they  could  not 
read  the  papers,  were  apt  to  be  most  responsive  to  ap¬ 
peals  against  “Yankee”  or  “nigger.”115  The  combined 
numbers  of  these  uncertain  elements  was  but  a  small 
fraction  of  the  entire  population. 

The  congressional  leaders,  Toombs  and  Stephens, 
immediately  set  to  work  with  C.  J.  Jenkins,  E.  A. 
Nisbet  and  others  already  on  the  ground  to  organize 
an  energetic  Union  campaign.  Cobb  likewise  began 
to  cooperate  with  Lumpkin  and  Judge  Andrews  in 
the  up-country  and  with  Arnold  and  Ward  in  Savan¬ 
nah.  The  Union  leaders  who  really  faced  the  most 
difficult  situation  were  these  Democrats,  Arnold  and 

113  See  chapter  ii. 

113  See  chapter  iii. 

lu  It  is  a  rather  peculiar  fact  that,  with  the  exception  of  Towns  and 
Haralson,  every  one  of  the  secessionist  leaders  was  out  of  office  in  1850. 

115  For  a  contemporary  northern  analysis  of  some  phases  of  this  situ¬ 
ation,  see,  e.g.,  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  26,  1850.  “Singu¬ 
lar  as  it  may  seem,”  observed  the  Oneida  (New  York)  Herald,  “crowds 
of  those  who  do  not  and  never  expect  to  own  a  negro,  are  most  influenced 
by  pro-slavery  nonsense.  The  inhabitants  of  .  .  .  the  uncultivated  por¬ 
tions  of  Georgia,  are  the  men  whom  the  slavery  champion  can  mould 
to  his  will”;  quoted  in  Federal  Union,  October  30,  1849.  The  Public 
Ledger  claimed  that  the  urban  classes  were  inclined  to  be  radical.  Cf. 
Weston,  Progress  of  Slavery,  p.  40. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


309 


Ward,  who  had  to  deal  in  Savannah  with  a  combina¬ 
tion  of  South  Carolinians  and  Berrien  Whigs  ;  and  who 
eventually  triumphed  largely  by  bringing  to  the  sup¬ 
port  of  the  conservative  “old  Savannah  families”  the 
assistance  of  the  patriotically  inclined  German  and 
Irish  immigrants.  Thus  the  exigencies  of  the  cam¬ 
paign  brought  together  strange  political  bedfellows  in 
Georgia, — the  “poor  white”  cooperating  with  the  city 
lawyer  secessionist,  while  the  Irish  laborer  consorted 
with  “people  of  consequence.”116 

The  Union  campaign  during  the  fall  was  featured, 
as  might  have  been  expected,  by  county  meetings  and 
addresses  as  well  as  by  the  confident  appeals  of  the 
press.  It  was  marked,  as  usual,  by  a  defence  of  Clay’s 
compromise  as  acceptable,  though  far  from  perfect; 
by  a  constant  emphasis  of  the  economic  advantages 
of  the  Union  and  the  economic  disadvantages  of  dis¬ 
union;117  and  by  the  fervent  appeal  to  old  loyalties. 
The  call  for  the  state  convention  was  at  times  con¬ 
demned.118 

The  extremist  orators,  on  the  other  hand,  featured 
news  garnered  from  the  abolitionist  press  in  the  North 
in  order  to  excite  the  people.  Such  news  was  sup¬ 
plemented  by  direct  appeals  to  race  feeling.  It  was 
declared,  for  instance,  that  the  Yankees  “preferred 
niggers  to  poor  white  men”  and  that  secession  was  the 
only  possible  alternative  to  the  social  and  economic 
equality  of  the  races.119 

116  There  is  an  interesting  analysis  of  this  peculiar  situation  in 
Savannah  in  Arnold's  long  report  to  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold 
MSS. 

111  See,  e.g.,  Columbus  Enquirer,  in  Chronicle,  September  21,  1850. 

318  For  typical  resolutions  of  a  county  Union  meeting  see  those  of  the 
Macon  meeting  early  in  October,  in  Washington  Union,  October  6,  1850. 

118  Banners  to  this  effect  were  displayed  at  extremist  meetings ;  see, 
e.g.,  Augusta  Constitutionalist,  in  the  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  October 
■6,  1850. 


310 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  secessionist  campaign  opened  with  violent 
condemnations  of  the  Union,  elicited  from  a  few  of 
the  more  extreme  of  the  radical  editors  by  the  excite¬ 
ment  attending  the  Governor’s  proclamation.  These 
editorials  have  been  much  quoted,  particularly  the 
statements  of  the  Columbus  Times  and  the  Columbus 
Sentinel  that  “we  hate  the  Union  as  we  do  hell  it¬ 
self,”  and  that  “we  are  for  open,  unqualified  secession, 
for  war  upon  the  government.”  The  Times  worked  it¬ 
self  up  to  an  extremely  hysterical  mood,  urging  the 
leaders  to  “Form  clubs,  enlighten  the  people,  put  arms 
in  their  hands  ...  do  anything  and  everything  to 
save  this  state  from  recreancy  and  the  eternal  dis¬ 
grace  to  herself  from  backing  out.”120 

Other  southern-rights  papers  hesitated,  however, 
to  advocate  immediate  secession,  and  by  the  latter  part 
of  October  there  was  a  noticeable  moderation  in  the 
opinion  of  all  the  radical  papers  save  one  or  two.  At 
the  same  time,  the  southern-rights  leaders  ceased  to 
counsel  “secession”  and  came  to  speak  only  of  “resis¬ 
tance  to  oppression.”  This  “swing  to  the  right”  was 
the  most  noticeable  and  significant  feature  of  the  en¬ 
tire  campaign.  The  secessionists  at  last  had  their 
ears  to  the  ground,  or — to  mix  the  metaphors — they 
had  at  last  seen  the  Union  writing  on  the  wall.  It 
was  patent  to  all  that  the  extremists  admitted  at  last 
that  the  masses  were  against  them  and  that  it  would 
have  been  wiser  never  to  have  come  out  openly  for 
secession.  Papers  which  advocated  secession  in  Sep¬ 
tember  were  ready  by  the  end  of  October  to  accept  the 

120  Quoted  in  the  Chronicle,  September  20,  1850.  The  papers  openly- 
urging  secession  were  the  Times,  the  Sentinel,  and  the  Macon  Telegraph. 
The  exact  attitude  of  the  Augusta  Constitutio>ialist  and  the  Augusta 
Republic  has  not  been  ascertained. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


311 


compromise.121  Practically  no  speakers  were  advo¬ 
cating  secession  by  the  time  November  arrived.  In 
traveling  the  road  from  secessionist  to  compromise 
positions,  some  of  the  papers  stopped  at  the  half-way 
point  of  “non-intercourse”  or  the  demand  for  another 
southern  convention,  but  many  went  all  the  way  to 
the  compromise.122  By  the  beginning  of  1851,  the 
Federal  Union  was  calmly  announcing  to  the  people 
that  “there  never  was  an  organized  disunion  party  in 
Georgia.”  There  were  “only  a  few  who  believed  that 
the  rights  of  the  South  will  never  be  secure  in  the 
Union,”  and  few  or  no  disunionists  per  se.  It  an¬ 
nounced  truthfully  enough  that  at  the  time  of  the  elec¬ 
tion  to  the  state  convention  “there  was  not  among  the 
southern-rights  candidates  a  single  one  who  was  not 
opposed  to  or  pledged  against  disunion.”123 

The  Union  men  met  this  retreat  at  times  with 
irony  and  scorn,  at  other  times  with  great  caution. 
At  one  meeting  an  extremist  advocating  “resistance” 
was  forced  to  say  what  he  meant  by  the  term.  He 
finally  declared  that  when  he  said  he  would  “resist” 
he  meant  that  he  would  “petition.”  “Great  God !”  said 
a  bystander,  “who  ever  heard  of  such  a  mode  of  resis¬ 
tance.”  Another  turned  away  with  the  significant 
comment :  “Barnum  ought  to  have  him !”  On  the  other 
hand,  Cobb  and  others  steadily  warned  the  people 
against  the  secessionist  wolves  who  had  now  donned 
the  sheep’s  clothing  of  the  compromise. 

It  is  difficult  to  ascribe  the  “back  down”  of  the 
secessionists  to  any  one  particular  factor  that  entered 
into  the  fall  campaign.  The  energy  infused  into  the 

121  Especially  the  Columbus  Times;  see  the  Washington  Union, 
October  27,  1850. 

%a  See  the  Georgian,  October  31;  News,  October  25,  November  8; 
Federal  Union  in  Washington  Union,  November  5,  1850. 

Federal  Union,  January  21,  1851. 


312 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Union  appeal  by  the  returning  congressional  delega¬ 
tion  may  have  been  one  factor  involved,  though  just 
what  potency  this  had  it  is  difficult  to  say.  There 
had  been  little  favorable  public  response  to  the  -call 
for  secession  from  the  moment  of  the  first  open  appeal 
at  the  Macon  mass  meeting  in  August.  There  had,  on 
the  other  hand,  been  definite  evidences  of  hostility  and 
indifference  to  this  appeal  from  that  moment  on.  It  is 
probable  that  these  reactions  convinced  many  of  the 
secessionists  that  the  August  appeal  had  been  prema¬ 
ture — that  the  Georgia  people  were  not  yet  prepared 
for  secession  and  that  a  return  to  the  ambiguous  and 
less  radical  appeals  of  the  spring  and  early  summer  was 
indicated  under  the  circumstances.  It  is  doubtful  if 
the  return  of  the  congressmen  altered  this  situation  in 
any  fundamental  manner.124 

Indeed,  one  of  the  returning  Union  leaders  was, 
in  certain  respects,  a  liability  rather  than  an  asset  to 
the  Union  cause.  In  the  course  of  their  campaign  the 
Georgia  extremists  evinced  great  bitterness  against 
“Hamilcar  Toombs,”  who — having  declared  that  “This 
cry  of  Union  is  the  masked  battery  from  which  the 
rights  of  the  South  are  to  be  assailed” — was  now 
sounding  that  very  cry  himself.  When  Toombs,  ag¬ 
gressive  as  usual,  challenged  the  radicals  to  a  joint 
debate  at  Columbus,  they  failed  to  respond,  though 
there  was  some  talk  of  bringing  Yancey  over  from 
Alabama  to  meet  him.  When  Toombs  came  to  Colum- 

121  Cf.  R.  P.  Brooks,  “Howell  Cobb  and  the  Crisis  of  1850’’,  Mississ¬ 
ippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  IV.  289;  Brooks,  History  of  Georgia, 
pp.  243,  244;  A.  C.  Cole,  Whig  Party  in  the  South,  pp.  180,  181;  H.  D. 
Foster,  “Webster’s  Seventh  of  March  Speech  and  the  Secession  Move¬ 
ment,  1850,”  American  Historical  Rcviciv,  XXVII.  250,  251 ;  L.  L. 
Knight,  Reminiscences  of  Famous  Georgians,  pp.  107,  211;  U.  B.  Phil¬ 
lips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  p.  164;  Phillips,  Robert  Toombs,  pp. 
95-99. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


313 


bus,  however,  the  secessionists  made  thing's  as  unpleas¬ 
ant  as  possible.  The  Times  declared  that : 

Toombs  and  Stephens  have  operated  like  sparks  on  a  tinder 
box  in  this  community.  They  have  raised  the  very  dander  of 
our  people.  Toombs  had  not  been  in  town  two  hours  before  he 
was  hanged  in  effigy.  This  was  not  proper  in  the  boys  but  the 
boys  will  get  excited  in  exciting  times.  The  crowd  was  a  very 
firey  one  that  sat  under  Toombs  and  Stephens — we  deem  it  for¬ 
tunate  there  was  no  serious  accident  to  report.125 

Toombs  denied  emphatically  the  charge  of  inconsis¬ 
tency,  pointing  out  that  none  of  the  three  measures  he 
had  declared  would  justify  secession  had  been  incor¬ 
porated  in  the  compromise,  and  reminded  everyone 
that  he  had  “always  denounced  this  California  Re¬ 
bellion.”126 

One  incident  occurred  during  the  campaign  that 
temporarily  raised  the  hopes  of  the  “Ultraists.”  It 
happened  that  two  slaves  belonging  to  the  same  Dr. 
Collins  of  Macon  who  had  saved  the  editor  of  the 
Citizen  of  that  city,  escaped  during  October  to  Boston. 
He  thereupon  sent  friends  to  Boston  to  reclaim  them. 
These  agents,  upon  arriving  at  that  city,  were  threat¬ 
ened  with  mob  violence  by  the  abolitionists,  and  there 
was  much  excitement.  The  incident  might  have  made 
trouble  for  the  Union  cause  in  Georgia,  as  the  moder¬ 
ates  had  accepted  the  compromise  only  in  the  belief 
that  it  would  be  observed  in  good  faith  by  the  North. 
The  “Boston  Excitement”  implied  that  the  fugitive 
slave  law  might  not  be  enforced.  The  Macon  Journal 
solemnly  warned  Boston  that,  “while  we  yield  to  the 
compromise  measures  of  the  late  Congress,  we  are  de¬ 
termined  to  require  a  faithful  compliance  with  the 
Fugitive  Slave  Act,  and  in  case  of  refusal  shall  take 

125  Times,  in  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  November  12,  1850. 

Chronicle,  October  9,  1850. 


314 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


our  redress  in  what  manner  we  think  best.”127  Some 
fear  was  expressed  in  the  North  that  the  episode  might 
turn  the  tide  in  Georgia  back  to  secession.128 

Fortunately  for  the  Union  cause,  President  Fil- 
more  seized  the  opportunity  to  make  clear  his  own 
position  and  the  status  of  the  fugitive  slave  law  by 
writing  personally  to  Dr.  Collins,  assuring  him  that 
the  law  would  be  enforced  by  the  federal  authorities. 
This  “Collins  Letter”  was  printed  all  over  the  country 
as  well  as  in  Georgia.  The  conservative  papers  in  the 
latter  state  expressed  great  satisfaction  with  it,  while 
the  radical  papers  condemned  it  as  a  presidential  at¬ 
tempt  to  interfere  in  the  struggle  in  the  state.129 

This  incident,  therefore,  did  not  react  unfavorably 
upon  the  Union  cause.  It  did,  however,  serve  to  bring 
out  what  the  conservatives  always  claimed;  namely, 
that  they  were  in  no  sense  the  “submissionists”  the 
enemy  accused  them  of  being.  Practically  from  the 
time  the  compromise  was  clearly  outlined,  the  feeling 
had  prevailed  among  the  Unionists  that  it  was  unsatis¬ 
factory  and  should  be  accepted  only  as  a  last  conces¬ 
sion  to  the  antislavery  power.  The  first  able  and 
formal  expression  of  this  feeling  was  given  at  a  meet¬ 
ing  in  Savannah  in  October,  over  which  Arnold  and 
Ward  presided  and  from  which  the  extremists  had 
been  forced  to  withdraw.  The  “rump”  meeting 
adopted  resolutions  drawn  up  by  Cuyler,  a  Savannah 
Union  man,  which  declared  that  the  compromise  should 
be  accepted  as  a  last  full  measure  of  conciliation,  but 
that  no  further  concessions  would  be  made.  The  South 
should  now  draw  finally  the  line  beyond  which  the 

121  Macon  Journal,  in  the  Washington  Union,  November  12,  1850. 

128  Baltimore  Sun,  November  9;  Columbus  Ohio  Statesman,  Novem¬ 
ber  23,  1850. 

128  See  the  Washington  Republic,  November  23;  Columbus  Ohio 
Statesman,  November  23;  Savannah  News,  November  12,  1850,  etc. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


315 


North  should  not  go.  These  resolutions  were  widely- 
quoted  in  the  state  and  elsewhere  as  the  “Chatham 
Platform,”  a  platform  upon  which  southern  men  could 
well  unite  to  preserve  at  one  and  the  same  time  the 
integrity  of  the  Union  and  the  rights  of  the  South. 
Cuyler’s  resolutions  were  practically  identical  with 
those  subsequently  adopted  by  the  state  convention 
and  which  became  nationally  known  as  the  “Georgia 
Platform.”130 

To  the  extent  that  the  Union  men  were  now  mak¬ 
ing  clear  their  opposition  to  further  concessions,  they 
made  it  somewhat  easier  for  the  extremists  to  accept 
the  compromise  position.  In  a  sense,  the  two  parties 
approached  one  another  during  October  and  Novem¬ 
ber  to  agree  upon  the  common  basis  of  the  “Chatham 
Platform.”  This  involved  the  extremists,  however, 
in  some  inconsistency  and  humiliation,  whereas  with 
the  Union  men  it  meant  only  a  greater  emphasis  upon 
the  ultimate  character  of  the  compromise  they  had  ad¬ 
vocated  from  the  beginning. 

There  was  one  other  group  besides  the  Union  men 
and  the  extremists  to  be  heard  from  during  the  fall 
campaign.  This  was  the  Berrien  following,  which 
advocated  economic  resistance  to  the  North.  The 
movement  for  “non-intercourse”  never  commanded 
a  large  popular  following  in  Georgia,  probably  be¬ 
cause  it  was  considered  an  impracticable,  middle-of- 
the-road  position  that  could  not  be  long  maintained 
between  the  Union  on  the  one  hand  and  secession  on 
the  other.  Because  of  this,  there  was  always  some  un¬ 
certainty  as  to  the  real  meaning  of  “non-intercourse” 

130  For  the  “Chatham  Platform”  see  Savannah  News,  October  24; 
Republican,  October  24,  1850.  The  general  view  taken  therein  was  be¬ 
coming  common  in  the  South  at  the  time.  See,  e.g.,  Mobile  Daily  Adver¬ 
tiser,  October  15;  Savannah  Republican,  October  22;  Columbus  (Geor¬ 
gia)  Times,  in  Washington  Union,  October  27,  1850. 


316 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


and  as  to  whether  its  advocates  should  be  classified  as 
southern-rights  or  Union  men.131  Generally  speaking, 
they  were  claimed  by  the  former,  but  the  “non-inter¬ 
course”  men  themselves  always  opposed  immediate 
secession.  Senator  Berrien  continued  to  be  the  leader 
of  this  group  in  Georgia  through  the  fall  compaign, 
and  his  chief  press  support  came  from  the  Savannah 
News,132  though  he  was  encouraged  by  all  the  south¬ 
ern-rights  journals. 

Berrien’s  main  thesis  was  that  already  noted  in 
his  summer  letters  ;133  that  is,  that  there  must  be  resis¬ 
tance  within  the  Union  and  the  Constitution — but  that 
there  must  be  resistance.  Secession  would,  he  held, 
be  “impracticable”  and  “the  worst  of  evils.”  “Non¬ 
intercourse,”  on  the  other  hand,  would  encourage 
the  economic  life  of  the  South  and  would  bring  pres¬ 
sure  upon  northern  conservative  business  interests 
that  might  lead  to  further  concessions,  or,  if  this  did 
not  happen,  would  prepare  the  South  for  the  final 
stand  that  would  then  be  necessary  against  the  North. 
In  defining  “non-intercourse,”  he  admitted,  as  a  con¬ 
stitutional  lawyer,  that  some  of  the  measures  in  the 
recent  legislature  looking  towards  that  policy  were  un¬ 
constitutional,  but  he  believed  that  the  Supreme  Court 
would  permit  a  tax  on  goods  entering  the  state.  Such 
taxes  should  therefore  be  levied;  only  southern  ports 
should  be  used  in  trading  with  Europe ;  the  state  should 
subsidize  steamship  companies  and  encourage  local 

131  Senator  Foote  and  the  Jackson  (Mississippi)  Southron  claimed 
that  Berrien,  the  leader  of  the  non-intercourse  men  in  Georgia,  was  for 
the  compromise.  The  Federal  Union  and  the  Jackson  Mississippian 
denied  this;  see  the  Mississippian,  November  22,  1850. 

132  See  the  News,  November  6,  7,  1850. 

133  “Tybee”,  correspondent  of  the  Baltimore  Sun,  thought  that  Ber¬ 
rien  came  home  “hot”  and  was  “cooled  off”  by  Georgia  opinion ;  see 
Baltimore  Sun,  October  19,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


317 


manufactures;  and,  in  general,  the  South  should  make 
itself  economically  independent  of  the  North.134 

Such  was  the  “Berrien  Platform,”  as  it  came  to  be 
known  in  Georgia,  when  its  author  became  active  in 
the  fall  campaign.  He  received  some  support  from  the 
“old  Whig”  element  which  had  bolted  that  party  the 
year  before  and  from  some  of  the  extremists,  especi¬ 
ally  in  the  lower  counties  “along  the  river,”  where  the 
South  Carolina  element  was  strong.  One  of  the  few 
“Southern  Rights  Associations”  which  had  been 
formed  was  reported  to  have  adopted  the  interesting 
resolution  that : 

The  members  of  this  Association  will  not  hereafter  hold  any 
intercourse,  social  or  commercial,  with  any  Northern  man  or 
foreigner  from  any  non-slave-holding  nation,  or  the  children  or 
grandchildren,  or  any  collateral  relation  of  such  Northern  man 
or  foreigner,  however  remote.135 

This  was  indeed  building  the  “Chinese  Wall”  about 
the  state,  of  which  the  Boston  Courier  had  spoken  the 
previous  winter,  but  few  Georgians  desired  to  help  in 
its  construction.  One  or  two  merchants  in  Savannah 
declared  they  would  cease  trading  with  the  North 
at  once,  but  the  movement  was  not  general.  As  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  fact,  when  the  state  convention  elections  were 
held,  just  one  county  chose  delegates  pledged  to  the 
“Berrien  Platform.”136 

334  For  the  general  economic  background  to  such  principles,  see  St. 
George  L.  Sioussat,  “Co-operation  for  the  Development  of  the  Material 
Welfare  of  the  South,”  The  South  in  the  Building  of  the  Nation,  IV. 
173-179. 

135  Chronicle,  October  8,  1850. 

138  This  was  Burke,  on  the  Savannah  river ;  see  Macon  Journal,  No¬ 
vember  29,  in  Philadelphia  North  American,  December  7,  1850.  For 
data  on  Berrien’s  part  in  the  campaign  (which  practically  ended  his 
career)  see  Jackson  Mississippian,  November  22;  Augusta  Constitution¬ 
alist,  in  Washington  Republic,  November  16;  Mobile  Daily  Advertiser, 
November  26;  Chronicle,  October  2,  6,  November  6;  Tallahassee  Flori¬ 
dian,  November  9,  1850;  Natchez  (Mississippi)  Courier,  November  22; 


318 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  elections  to  the  state  convention  were  to  be 
held  November  25,  in  the  manner  usual  for  elections 
to  the  legislature.  Nominations  had  been  made  by  each 
party  in  most  of  the  counties,  usually  by  a  committee 
appointed  by  “county  caucuses,”  which  meetings  also 
endorsed  the  committees’  recommendations  after  they 
were  made.137  In  some  ten  counties  the  extremists  fail¬ 
ed  to  make  any  nominations.  As  the  great  day  ap¬ 
proached  when  Georgia  should  proclaim  her  attitude  to 
the  nation,  the  press  on  each  side  made  final  statements 
and  appeals.  The  appeal  of  most  of  the  radical  papers 
was  in  line  with  their  recent  moderation  and  was  often 
nominally  a  plea  for,  rather  than  against,  the  Union. 
“Submission  now,”  said  the  Federal  Union  on  Novem¬ 
ber  19,  “is  abolition  and  ultimate  disunion.  Resistance 
now,  with  the  rights  of  the  South,  may  save  the 
Union.”  The  Union  papers,  on  the  other  hand,  dis¬ 
played  great  confidence  in  coming  victory  and  were 
inclined  to  ridicule  the  “backsliding”  southern-rights 
party.  “Tybee,”  the  able  Savannah  correspondent  of 
the  Baltimore  Sun,  estimated  that  of  the  ninety-three 
counties  not  more  than  eighteen  would  go  for  the 
extremists.138  Much  ridicule  was  heaped  upon  the  al¬ 
ready  fallen  foe,  of  which  the  following  quotation  is  a 
fair  and  suggestive  example,  taken  from  Holsey’s 
Athens  Banner.  The  substance  may  have  been  in¬ 
tended  as  a  mockery  of  Governor  Towns’  proclama¬ 
tion  : 

Boston  Courier,  November  26;  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November 
25;  Baltimore  Sun,  November  16;  Savannah  News,  November  6,  20, 
1850. 

13:  See  description  of  nominating  methods  in  Chronicle,  October  12, 
1850. 

138  Baltimore  Sun,  November  20.  “Tybee’s”  accounts  of  the  cam¬ 
paign  are  the  best-connected  ones  to  be  found,  and  contain  valuable 
observations  on  public  opinion;  see  the  Sun  for  October  3,  19,  28, 
November  4,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


319 


PROCLAMATION  OF  ABSOLOM  TRICKUM 
Attention,  Invincibles!  To  the  rescue,  Chivalry!  Fire-eaters 
to  your  tents !  Up  with  your  new  lights  and  down  with  the 
Union!  You  are  ordered  to  muster  at  once  in  revolutionary 
style,  and  with  your  appearance  touched  off  with  a  tint  of  the 
terrible, — your  mustaches  18  inches  long,  your  finger  nails  3 
inches  long  and  pointed  for  gouging,  knapsack  of  the  shape  and 
capacity  of  a  coffin139  .  .  .  For  regimental  flag:  “United 

we  fall— Divided  we  stand and  for  company  flags :  “Cats- 
paws  for  South  Carolina.”  Col.  Hydrogen  Gass  will  take  com¬ 
mand  with  Rhett-orical  flourish,  and  lead  you : 

Where  hills  and  dales 
And  Brooks  that  fail 
And  Senator  Hale  so  merrily  sail 
On  the  ocean  of  wild  disunion. 

Finally  each  man  will  kill  twenty  Yankees  apiece,  and  capture 
New  York  .  .  .  where  they  will  seize  Barnum  &  Jenny 

Lind — and  then  for  the  spoils  of  a  real  ridotto  !140 

When  the  election  was  held,  on  November  26,  the 
result  was  to  a  large  extent  a  repetition  of  the  April 
election  fiasco.  The  “Ultraists”  were  swept  off  their 
feet  by  a  Union  majority  greater  than  any  party  had 
ever  rolled  up  in  the  history  of  the  state.  Of  the  ninety- 
three  counties,  but  ten  chose  southern-rights  delega¬ 
tions  to  the  convention,  which  meant  that  the  Union 
party  would  have  complete  control  of  that  body. 
The  popular  vote  was  about  forty-six  thousand  for 
the  Union  candidates  to  some  twenty-four  thousand 
for  their  southern-rights  opponents.141  This  meant 
that  less  than  half  of  the  Georgia  Democrats142  had 
been  willing  to  vote  for  the  southern-rights  candidates 
even  when  these  men  were  strenuously  denying  seces¬ 
sion  and  claiming  that  they  would  save  the  Union.  The 

139  The  extremists  had  said  they  would  “march  up  to  the  Missouri 
line  with  their  coffins  on  their  backs.” 

140  Athens  Banner,  in  the  Boston  Bee,  November  26,  1850. 

141  For  election  results  see  Chronicle,  November  24 ;  Georgian,  No¬ 
vember  29;  Republican,  December  17,  1850. 

142  The  normal  Democratic  vote  at  this  time  was  about  50,000. 


320 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Union  press  claimed,  with  apparent  justice,  that  had 
the  radical  leaders  not  “backed  down’’  and  disclaimed 
secession,  they  would  have  sent  scarcely  a  man  to  the 
convention.  An  analysis  of  the  county  results,  as 
given  in  the  press  and  compared  with  the  voting  policy 
of  the  delegates  when  present  later  in  the  convention, 
reveals  that  only  two  sections  of  the  state  held  to  the 
extremist  cause.  These  were  the  tier  of  Democratic 
counties  in  Central  Georgia  and  the  ring  of  counties 
around  the  outer  edge  of  the  Pine  Barrens.143  The  ex¬ 
planation  in  the  case  of  the  Democratic  tier  has  already 
been  suggested;  that  is,  the  incurable  habit  therein  of 
following  leaders  rather  than  principles.  The  explana¬ 
tion  in  the  case  of  the  Pine  Barrens  is  not  so  simple. 
In  the  case  of  Bulloch  county,  it  may  have  been  due  to 
the  same  factors  that  affected  the  Democratic  tier  in 
Central  Georgia,  while  counties  on  the  Savannah  river 
may  have  been  influenced  by  their  contacts  with  Caro¬ 
lina.  It  is  suggestive,  however,  that  these  Lower  Geor¬ 
gia  counties  which  went  for  the  “Ultraists”  did  form  a 
partial  ring  around  the  edge  of  the  Pine  Barrens  area. 
It  is  probable  that  a  large  percentage  of  the  “poor 
whites”  living  on  the  fringe  of  the  plantation  country 
voted  extremist.  It  is  also  possible,  though  it  cannot 
be  proved,  that  this  was  due  to  their  responsiveness  to 
appeals  against  the  Yankees  and  the  Negroes.  It  has 
been  pointed  out  that  their  degraded  economic  and 
mental  condition  made  them  particularly  responsive 
to  these  very  appeals,  which  had  been  featured  in  the 
southern-rights  campaign.144 

In  several  of  these  Pine  Barrens  counties  a  di¬ 
vided  delegation  was  chosen,  which  the  Macon  Jour- 

143  See  Map  No.  7,  p.  320. 

144  See  chapter  ii  for  a  description  of  the  “poor  whites”  and  their 
prejudices. 


MAP  NO.  7 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


321 


nal  said  was  due  to  the  claim  of  the  southern-rights 
candidates  that  they  were  as  strongly  for  the  Union  as 
were  their  opponents.145  In  ten  counties  the  “Ultra- 
ists”  offered  no  resistance  whatever,  but  these  were 
not  concentrated  in  any  one  section.  In  the  one  county 
already  noted,  Burke,  a  delegation  pledged  to  the  “Ber¬ 
rien  Platform”  was  selected. 

There  were  close  contests  in  Columbus  and  Savan¬ 
nah,  as  had  been  anticipated.  In  both  cities  the  Union 
party  was  saved  by  the  help  of  northern  men  and  the 
foreign-born.  In  Savannah  the  influence  of  the  mayor 
and  council  was  with  the  extremists,  yet  one  hundred 
members  of  the  city  guards,  most  of  whom  were  natur¬ 
alized  citizens,  voted  the  Union  ticket,  despite  threats 
from  the  local  administration.  The  same  was  true 
of  the  foreign  shopkeepers.146  As  it  was,  the  Union 
men  carried  Savannah  by  a  vote  of  only  nine  hundred 
and  thirty  to  seven  hundred  and  seventy.  Meanwhile 
in  Columbus,  declared  the  Times,  “the  Yankees,  For¬ 
eigners  and  Traitors  carried  the  Union  ticket.”147 

In  all  other  parts  of  the  state,  the  Union  forces  won 
sweeping  victories.  There  was  naturally  great  jubila¬ 
tion  in  the  Union  press  of  Georgia148  and  neighboring 
states,  and  also  in  the  North.149  “Tybee”  wrote  North 
that  “The  Union  men  are  astonished  at  the  vastness 
of  their  victory.  They  have  carried  the  state  by  a 
majority  that  has  no  parallel  in  the  history  of  this 

145  Macon  Journal,  in  Mobile  Daily  Advertiser,  December  10,  1850. 

146  Arnold  to  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold  MSS. 

147  Columbus  Times,  in  the  Chronicle,  December  6,  1850. 

148  Chronicle,  November  27,  28;  Republican,  November  28,  1850. 

149  Mobile  Advertiser,  November  29;  Montgomery  Daily  Alabama 
Journal,  November  30;  Jackson  Flag  of  the  Union,  December  6;  Natchez 
Courier,  December  3;  Aberdeen  (Mississippi)  Independent,  December 
7,  1850,  etc. 


322 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


country.”150  The  conservative  press  in  all  sections 
teemed  with  such  phrases  as  “Pleasant  Surprise” — 
“Glorious  News,”  “Happy  Omen,”  “Georgia  has  ‘led 
off’  nobly  for  the  Union,”  and  the  like.  The  result 
was  bound  to  influence  all  the  lower  South,  it  was 
thought,  and  thus  play  a  great  part  in  the  national 
salvation. 

The  southern-rights  press  in  Georgia,  Alabama, 
and  Mississippi  varied  in  its  reactions  to  the  crushing 
defeat  sustained.  The  Savannah  Nezvs  was  moderate; 
it  regretted  the  result,  but  “did  not  doubt  the  fidelity 
of  the  Union  delegates  to  the  South.”  The  Georgian 
was  bitter,  declaring  “we  are  beaten,  but  never  was  an 
election  carried  with  such  corruption.”  The  Columbus 
Times  was  defeated,  but  not  disheartened.  “The  South¬ 
ern-Rights  ticket  is  beaten,”  it  declared,  “but  Southern 
rights  are  not  conquered.  From  the  thistle  of  defeat 
we  will  pluck  the  flower  of  victory!  We  entered  the 
canvass  under  the  banner  of  secession  and  Southern 
Liberty.  We  have  kept  it  flying,  and  now  nail  it  to 
the  mast  !”151 

The  effect  of  the  election  upon  South  Carolina  was, 
of  course,  most  important.  Towns’  fears  and  Sea- 
brook’s  prediction  had  now  been  realized.  Georgia  had 
led  off  backwards,  and,  if  South  Carolina  was  to  await 
cooperation,  the  opportunity  for  secession  had  ceased 
to  exist.  The  day  after  the  Georgia  election  Sea- 
brook  addressed  the  newly  assembled  South  Carolina 
legislature,  urging  against  precipitate  action  without 

150  Baltimore  Sun,  November  30;  see  also  National  Intelligencer, 
December  14;  Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  November  29;  New  York 
Tribune,  December  13,  1850;  Columbus  Ohio  State  Journal,  December 
2,  1851. 

151  News,  November  27;  Georgian,  November  30;  Columbus  Times 
in  the  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  November  29;  see  also  the  Talla¬ 
hassee  Floridian,  November  30;  Montgomery  Advertiser  in  the  Georgian, 
November  30,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


323 


the  cooperation  of  the  sister  states.152  It  is  clear  from 
his  secret  letters  to  Towns  that,  had  the  Georgia 
election  resulted  in  a  southern-rights  victory,  his 
action  would  have  been  very  different.  Georgia  had 
checked  South  Carolina. 

It  is  true  that  some  hope  was  expressed  in  the  latter 
state  that  the  Georgia  convention  could  still  be  counted 
upon  to  take  extreme  action.153  The  more  typical 
view  of  the  Carolina  cooperationists,  however,  was 
that  expressed  in  the  speech  of  B.  F.  Perry,  repre¬ 
sentative  from  Greenville,  in  the  South  Carolina 
House.  A  fortnight  after  the  elections  in  Georgia, 
Perry  urged  Carolina  to  await  cooperation  before 
seceding  from  the  Union,  and,  in  this  connection,  it 
was  necessary  to  warn  his  colleagues  of  the  situation 
in  the  sister  states: 

Mississippi  (he  declared)  is  more  with  South  Carolina  than 
any  other  state.  But  her  interests  are  with  the  Mississippi  Val¬ 
ley.  I  doubt  very  much  whether  Georgia  and  South  Carolina 
can  ever  agree  on  anything,  much  less  on  the  formation  of  an 
independent  Republic.  Two-thirds  of  Georgia  is  now  opposed 
to  the  action  of  South  Carolina.  They  would  not  support  us 
even  if  we  started  the  ball  rolling.154 

While  the  state  convention  campaign  was  still  un¬ 
der  way  in  Georgia,  there  had  occurred  a  curious  inter¬ 
lude  that  under  other  circumstances  might  have  led  to 
serious  consequences ;  namely,  the  meeting  of  the  sec¬ 
ond  session  of  the  southern  convention  at  Nashville,  on 
November  11.  This  assembly  had  been  robbed  of  all 
raison  d’etre  by  the  passage  of  the  compromise  and  the 
unmistakable  tendency  in  the  South  to  accept  that  ad- 

152  Savannah  News,  November  29,  1850. 

153  Charleston  News,  December  7,  in  the  Washington  Union,  Decem¬ 
ber  12,  1850. 

154  Speech  of  B.  F.  Perry  in  the  South  Carolina  House,  December  11, 
1850,  (pamphlet,  Charleston,  1851). 


324 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


justment.  Hence  there  was  probably  less  interest  tak¬ 
en  in  it  than  there  was  in  the  Georgia  election  itself. 
Many  delegates  to  the  first  session  failed  to  attend  the 
second.  Only  four  of  the  original  Georgia  delegation 
returned  to  this  meeting,  Benning,  McDonald,  Mc- 
Whertor,  and  Bledsoe,  but  the  Governor  appointed  new 
representatives  to  take  the  places  of  those  who  refused 
to  go.153  Since  Sharkey  of  Mississippi  did  not  return, 
McDonald  of  Georgia  was  honored  with  the  chair. 

The  Georgia  delegation,  like  most  of  the  others 
except  that  from  Tennessee,  was  now  purged  of  all 
but  the  most  extreme  members,  and  the  secession¬ 
ists  therefore  had  things  all  their  own  way.  Presi¬ 
dent  McDonald  opened  the  session  with  an  appeal 
for  action,  and  various  resolutions  were  introduced 
by  members  from  several  of  the  states,  includ¬ 
ing  Georgia,  looking  towards  secession.  McWhertor 
expressed  the  feelings  of  the  Georgia  delegation 
in  the  words:  “Union  and  Slavery  cannot  exist  to¬ 
gether,”  while  Cheves  of  South  Carolina  announced 
to  a  complacent  nation:  “Even  now  the  Union  is  di¬ 
vided.”  After  further  oratory  of  this  nature,  the 
convention  adjourned,  leaving  its  members  to  wend 
their  way  southward  once  more,  unhonored  and  un¬ 
sung. 

It  is  worthy  of  note,  however,  that  the  conservative 
Tennessee  delegation  adopted,  in  protest  to  the  radical 
resolutions  of  the  majority,  the  so-called  “Tennessee 
Resolutions,”  which  were  of  a  conciliatory  character. 
These  declared  the  Clay  compromise  unsatisfactory, 
but  accepted  it  with  the  distinct  understanding  that  no 

155  For  typical  reasons  for  refusal  to  attend  the  second  session,  see 
the  letter  from  ex-Governor  Troup  of  Georgia,  October  10,  1850,  quoted 
in  Harden,  G.  M.  Troup,  p.  529,  note  1.  For  the  list  of  actual  Georgia 
delegates  see  the  Nashville  Banner,  November  19,  in  Philadelphia  Public 
Ledger .  November  29;  Washington  Republic,  November  26,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


325 


further  concessions  to  the  North  were  to  be  made. 
This  was  the  same  view  which  had  been  proclaimed 
in  the  “Chatham  Platform”  at  Savannah  on  October 
23,  and  which  was  being  expressed  elsewhere  in  the 
South  at  the  same  time.  It  received,  of  course,  scant 
consideration  at  the  Nashville  meeting.156 

The  Georgia  state  convention  assembled  at  Mil- 
ledgeville  on  December  10,  1850.  There  were  present 
some  two  hundred  and  sixty-four  delegates,  and,  of 
these,  a  remarkably  large  number  were  able  and  in¬ 
fluential  men.  More  than  half  were  slaveholders,  own¬ 
ing  from  thirty  to  four  hundred  slaves  each,  and  many 
were  men  of  culture  and  education.157  It  was  obvious¬ 
ly  a  body  representing  the  educated,  propertied,  and 
conservative  classes,  regardless  of  party.  Among  the 
delegates  were  such  conservative  leaders  as  Toombs, 
Alexander  Stephens,  Jenkins,  Miller,  W.  B.  Wofford, 
W.  C.  Dawson,  Meriwether,  Ward,  and  Arnold.  The 
delegation  from  Chatham  alone  was  sufficiently  promi¬ 
nent  to  have  afforded  leadership  for  the  whole  body — 
Arnold,  Ward,  F.  S.  Bartow,  and  Cuyler,  the  last  the 
author  of  the  “Chatham  Platform.”  Very  few  of  the 
delegates  had  been  members  of  the  last  legislature, 
whose  personnel  had  been  markedly  inferior  to  that 
of  the  convention.  Indeed,  the  contrast  between  legis¬ 
lature  and  convention  in  this  respect  recalls  the  con¬ 
trast  between  the  Congress  of  1787  and  the  Consti¬ 
tutional  Convention  of  that  year.  The  only  prominent 
leader  among  the  handful  of  southern-rights  delegates 

lse  For  descriptions  of  the  second  session,  see  Herndon,  “The  Nash¬ 
ville  Convention”,  Alabama  Historical  Society  Publications,  V.  229-233 ; 
Sioussat,  “Tennessee,  the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  the  Nashville  Con¬ 
vention,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  II.  343-346.  For  the 
opinion  held  by  the  Georgia  southern-rights  group  of  the  second  session, 
see  Federal  Union,  June  17,  1851. 

157  Macon  Journal  in  the  Chronicle,  December  12,  1850. 


326 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


was  W.  J.  Lawton,  who  was  assisted,  however,  by  two 
relatively  unknown  extremists,  J.  L.  Seward  and  R. 
W.  McCune.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
Union  members,  numbering  some  two  hundred  and 
forty  to  twenty-three  of  the  southern  rights  group, 
was  impressive.  The  disproportion  was  so  great  that 
the  convention  served  to  all  intents  and  purposes  as 
the  first  Union  party  meeting  in  Georgia,  deriving  a 
peculiar  significance  from  the  fact  that  it  represented 
the  entire  population. 

On  motion  of  Meriwether,  the  Honorable  Thomas 
Spaulding,  of  McIntosh,  was  chosen  president,  that 
honor  being  accorded  him  as  the  last  living  signer  of 
the  state  constitution.158  Spaulding  made  a  brief  ad¬ 
dress  upon  taking  the  chair,  thanking  the  convention 
for  the  honor  which  he  felt  was  “perhaps  a  fitting  ter¬ 
mination  for  my  long  life.  Perhaps,”  he  continued, 
“the  members  may  expect  from  me  some  expression  of 
opinion  on  this  occasion.  ...  I  must  say  that  rather 
than  have  the  Union  under  which  we  have  enjoyed 
repose  and  happiness  for  sixty-three  years  destroyed, 
— rather  than  have  the  states  separated — I  should  pre¬ 
fer  to  see  myself  and  mine  slumbering  under  the  load 
of  monumental  clay.”159  This  was  hardly  an  auspici¬ 
ous  beginning  for  the  secessionists. 

The  state  senate  rules  were  then  adopted  as  a  basis 
of  procedure,  and  a  committee  of  thirty-three — three 
from  each  state  judicial  district — was  appointed  by  the 
president  to  consider  and  report  “action  appropriate 
for  the  occasion.”  All  the  thirty-three  appointed  were 
Union  men  save  two,  W.  J.  Lawton,  of  Scriven,  and 
J.  M.  Smith,  of  Camden.  This  brought  an  immediate 
protest  from  the  southern-rights  delegates,  who  felt 

158  Chronicle,  December  20,  1850. 

159  Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Georgia  Convention,  p.  2. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


327 


that  the  twenty-four  thousand  men  who  had  voted 
their  ticket  were  entitled  to  more  than  two  out  of 
thirty-three  members  on  the  committee.160  These  del¬ 
egates  considered  it  especially  objectionable,  moreover, 
that  the  only  southern-rights  men  named  were  both  of 
South  Carolina  origin,  it  being  suspected  that  Spauld¬ 
ing  thought  this  fact  would  discredit  their  party.161 
In  other  words,  the  feeling  against  South  Carolinians 
was  such  that  even  the  extremists  in  Georgia  did  not 
wish  to  be  identified  with  them. 

On  December  11,  a  number  of  pro-Union  resolu¬ 
tions  were  presented  without  being  read  and  referred 
to  the  committee  of  thirty-three.  Among  them  were 
those  proposed  by  Bartow  of  Savannah,  which  in  sub¬ 
stance  were  probably  like  the  “Chatham  Platform.” 

On  the  next  day  the  “Ultraists,”  apparently  un¬ 
deterred  by  their  small  numbers,  took  the  initiative. 
Seward,  of  Thomas,  began  by  introducing  resolutions 
thanking  Senator  Berrien  for  his  attitude  on  the  Cali¬ 
fornia  bill.  The  president  thought  that  such  matters 
should  be  referred  at  once  to  the  committee,  which,  in 
view  of  the  personnel  of  that  body,  would  have  been  a 
simple  way  of  burying  all  radical  resolutions.  It  thus 
appeared  that  the  Union  majority  was  not  even  in¬ 
clined  to  let  the  extremists  be  heard.  This  brought 
forth  an  energetic  protest  from  McCune,  of  Butts, 
who  had  seconded  Seward’s  resolution.  McCune  began 
to  give  his  frank  opinion  of  the  whole  convention : 

100  The  lack  of  “proportional  representation”  meant,  of  course,  that 
the  southern-rights  vote  of  twenty-four  thousand  was  not  represented 
in  the  convention  in  anything  like  a  proportionate  manner,  i.e.,  propor¬ 
tional  representation,  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  phrase,  would  have 
entitled  them  to  about  eighty-five  seats.  This  lack  of  proportionate 
representation  was  typical  of  all  American  institutions,  however. 

181  Federal  Union,  December  24,  1850. 


328 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


I  came  here  (he  said),  as  a  member  of  no  particular  party.  I 
came  here  for  the  purpose  of  taking  into  consideration  the 
action  of  the  last  Congress;  and  if  possible  of  harmonizing  the 
body  for  these  matters.  From  what  I  have  seen  and  heard 
since  I  have  been  here,  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  there 
is  a  disposition  in  the  majority  not  to  harmonize,  but  to  build 
up  a  great  party.  There  should  be  no  party  in  Georgia  on  this 
question,  none  in  the  South.  As  before  remarked,  I  came  here 
for  the  purpose  of  harmonizing  .  .  .  but,  sir,  I  see  a  dis¬ 

position  to  drive  off  members  who  are  called  “fire-eaters” — . 

Here  the  President  called  him  out  of  order.  The  Union 
“steam-roller”  had  begun  to  work  !162 

Seward,  not  dismayed,  immediately  followed  Mc- 
Cune  with  new  resolutions  accompanied  by  a  long 
preamble.  This  preamble  contained  quotations  from 
some  of  Toombs’  most  fiery  utterances  in  the  last  Con¬ 
gress,  an  indictment  of  his  want  of  fidelity  to  those 
utterances,  and  a  declaration  that  his  present  policy 
was  dangerous  to  the  South  and  to  the  Union.163  The 
resolutions  repeated  the  demand  made  by  the  second 
Nashville  meeting,  that  there  should  be  no  political 
cooperation  with  the  North,  and  concluded  with  the 
declaration:  “We  are  called  upon  to  defend  our  honor, 
our  property,  and  our  country  from  the  lawless  rule 
of  the  North.”164  Seward  read  these  statements  in  an 
excited  manner,  the  while  Toombs  gazed  upon  him 
with  what  a  reporter  was  pleased  to  call  “the  dignity 
of  a  lion.”165 

A  motion  to  print  these  resolutions  was  lost  amid 
some  confusion.  Seward  was  offended  at  the  demon¬ 
stration  asrainst  him  when  the  convention  also  refused 

o 

182  Debates  and  Proceedings,  p.  3. 

183  How  far  this  solicitude  for  the  Union  was  sincere  it  is  difficult 
to  say.  It  was  typical  of  the  new  attitude  assumed  by  the  extremists 
during  the  fall. 

184  Debates  and  Proceedings,  p.  4. 

185  Macon  Journal,  in  Chronicle,  December  29,  1850. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


329 


even  to  “take  up”  his  resolutions.  A  Union  member 
then  demanded  fair  play,  and  votes  were  finally  taken 
on  the  motion  to  take  up  the  resolutions.  Dr.  Arnold 
of  Savannah  remarked  that,  “as  the  gentleman  wishes 
to  speak  to  Buncombe  I  will  vote  aye.”  The  motion 
was  defeated,  one  hundred  and  twenty-seven  to  fifty- 
seven.  The  extremists  had  gained  nothing  for  their 
pains  and  felt,  perhaps  with  some  justice,  that  they 
were  not  receiving  a  consideration  proportionate  to 
the  votes  cast  by  their  party. 

On  the  thirteenth  C.  J.  Jenkins  presented  to  the 
convention  the  “Exposition  and  Resolutions”  prepared 
by  the  committee  of  thirty-three.  They  had  “carefully 
considered  the  papers  referred  to  them,”  he  reported, 
“and  freely  interchanged  opinions”  and  now  submitted 
the  results  of  their  deliberations.  The  “Exposition” 
was  a  remarkable  document,  and  the  resolutions  ap¬ 
pended  were  to  become  nationally  famous  as  the 
“Georgia  Platform.”  Authorship  has  usually  been 
ascribed  to  Jenkins,  who  was  chairman  of  the  com¬ 
mittee,166  although  Alexander  Stephens  later  claimed 
that  he  wrote  them,167  and  it  has  already  been  noted 
that  the  resolutions  really  followed  in  principle  the 
“Chatham  Platform”  penned  by  Cuyler,  the  Savannah 
Union  Democrat.  The  Georgia  Platform  owed  its 
origin  in  principle,  therefore,  though  not  in  exact 
wording,  to  the  Union  Democrats  as  well  as  to  the 
Whigs.168 

Jenkins,  in  reporting  the  preamble,  was  permitted 
to  read  it  from  the  desk,  which  he  did  “in  a  clear,  dis- 

166  C.  C.  Jones,  Life  of  Charles  J.  Jenkins ,  (Pamphlet,  Atlanta,  1884), 
p.  3 ;  Stoval,  Toombs,  p.  93. 

167  Avary,  Recollections  of  A.  H.  Stephens,  p.  27. 

168  Cf.  Cole,  “The  South  and  the  Right  of  Secession,”  Mississippi 
Valley  Historical  Review,  I.  382. 


330 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


tinct,  and  manly  tone.”  A  Union  party  reporter,  who 
was  present,  declared  that 

language  would  fail  to  describe  the  effect  it  produced.  Many, 
many  eyes  were  suffused  with  tears  at  one  moment  and  all 
seemed  to  feel  as  if  Georgia  ought  to  be  alike  proud  of  her 
position  and  of  her  noble  sons  who  framed  such  a  report.169 

The  preamble  began  with  a  resume  of  the  difficul¬ 
ties  in  the  last  Congress  and  proceeded  to  the  prac¬ 
tical  questions :  “May  Georgia  consistently  with  her 
honor  abide  by  the  general  scheme  of  pacification?  If 
she  may,  then  does  her  interest  lie  in  adherence  to  it, 
or  in  resistance?”  The  answer  was  then  given  that 
it  was  consistent  with  Georgia’s  honor,  for  only  the 
California  law  in  any  way  violated  even  the  demands 
of  the  last  legislature.  It  was  to  Georgia’s  interest, 
moreover,  to  accept  the  Compromise,  since  the  only 
conceivable  form  of  resistance  was  secession,  and 
secession  would  increase  rather  than  decrease  the 
state’s  difficulties.  Georgia  should  therefore  accept 
the  adjustment.  “To  this  course,”  it  was  added,  “she 
is  impelled  by  an  earnest  desire  to  perpetuate  the 
American  Union.” 

Here  ended  the  first  lesson  of  the  preamble — that 
addressed  to  the  people  of  Georgia.  There  followed 
one  addressed  to  the  “people  of  the  sovereign  states” — 
which  meant,  in  large  part,  to  the  people  of  the  North. 
This  began  with  a  review  of  the  history  of  slavery 
and  ended  with  a  solemn  warning  to  the  northern  con¬ 
servatives.  Georgia  would  say  to  the  moderate  nor¬ 
thern  patriots  who  were  tolerating  abolitionism  in 
their  midst: 

169  Milledgeville  Recorder,  in  a  special  night  extra,  December  14. 
containing  the  resolutions  and  preamble,  quoted  in  the  Washington 
Republic,  December  20,  1850.  See  also  Debates  and  Proceedings,  pp. 
5-8;  Journal  of  the  Georgia  Convention,  1850,  pp.  11-19.  For  the  Reso¬ 
lutions  alone  see  Ames,  State  Documents,  pp.  271,  272. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


331 


Be  not  deceived,  the  destiny  of  the  Union  is  in  your  hands. 
Awake  from  your  fatal  dream  of  security.  In  the  integrity  of 
your  patriotism  rise  up  against  this  disorganizing  heresy.  As¬ 
semble  in  the  venerated  halls  where  your  forefathers  and  our 
forefathers  together  signed  the  Constitution,  and  redeem  the 
City  of  Brotherly  Love  from  the  reproach  of  nourishing  its 
foe  .  .  .  Everywhere  .  .  .  decree  its  (abolitionism’s) 

banishment  from  the  high  places  of  power.  You  owe  the  coun¬ 
try  this  lustration.  As  for  Georgia,  her  choice  is  fraternity  and 
Union,  with  constitutional  rights — her  alternative  self-preserva¬ 
tion,  by  all  the  means  which  a  favoring  Providence  may  place  at 
her  disposal.170 

The  resolutions  that  followed  the  preamble  were 
similar  to  it,  in  that  they  added  to  the  acceptance  of 
the  compromise  a  warning  to  the  North  to  maintain  it. 
The  resolutions,  it  was  declared,  were  adopted  in 
order  “that  the  position  of  this  state  may  be  clearly 
apprehended  by  her  confederates  of  the  South  and 
North,  and  in  order  that  she  may  be  blameless  of  all 
future  consequences.”  The  first  three  were  general 
in  character,  declaring  the  necessity  for  the  compro¬ 
mise  and  announcing  that  Georgia,  “whilst  she  does 
not  wholly  approve,  will  abide  by  it  as  a  permanent 
adjustment  of  this  sectional  controversy.” 

The  fourth  and  fifth  resolutions  were  the  most 
vital  ones,  in  that  they  clearly  drew  the  line,  beyond 
which  the  North  must  not  go  if  the  compromise  was 
to  be  maintained : 

The  state  of  Georgia  (declared  the  fourth  resolution),  will  and 
ought  to  resist  even  (as  a  last  resort)  to  a  disruption  of  every 
tie  that  binds  her  to  the  Union,  any  action  of  Congress  upon 
the  subject  of  slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia,  or  in  places 
subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress,  incompatible  with  the 
safety,  and  domestic  tranquility,  the  rights  and  honor  of  the 
slave  holding  states,  or  any  refusal  to  admit  as  a  state  any  ter¬ 
ritory  hereafter  applying,  because  of  the  existence  of  slavery 
therein,  or  any  act,  prohibiting  the  introduction  of  slaves  into 

1,0  Debates  and  Proceedings,  pp.  7,  8. 


332 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  territories  of  Utah  and  New  Mexico,  or  any  act  repealing 
or  materially  modifying  the  laws  now  in  force  for  the  recovery 
of  fugitive  slaves. 

The  fifth  resolution  declared,  “That  it  is  the  deliberate 
opinion  of  this  Convention  that  upon  a  faithful  execu¬ 
tion  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  Law  by  the  proper  authori¬ 
ties  depends  the  preservation  of  our  much  beloved 
Union.” 

Several  statements  in  these  resolutions  are  nota¬ 
ble  :  first,  that  the  compromise  was  viewed  as  “final” ; 
second,  that  any  infringement  by  the  North  might  lead 
to  the  secession  of  Georgia;  and,  third,  that  each  of  a 
number  of  specific  encroachments  would  be  regarded 
as  just  cause  for  such  secession. 

As  soon  as  the  resolutions  had  been  reported  by 
Jenkins  for  the  committee,  Toombs  moved  that  the  en¬ 
tire  report  be  accepted;  but  the  “Ultraists”  secured  the 
right  to  consider  the  preamble  and  each  resolution 
separately.  As  each  resolution  came  up,  the  small  op¬ 
position  group  usually  attempted  amendments  and 
was  as  promptly  voted  down.  When  accused  of  “keep¬ 
ing  up  the  agitation  in  this  manner,”  Seward  made 
the  pointed  retort  that  Toombs  and  Stephens  had  de¬ 
layed  the  organization  of  the  national  House  for  weeks 
over  the  speakership,  and  “having  got  the  people  of 
Georgia  to  the  point  of  resistance,  they  come  home  and 
ask  [them]  to  submit  to  the  injustice  done  them.”171 

The  preamble  was  adopted  on  December  13,  by  two 
hundred  and  thirty-seven  votes  to  twenty-three.  On 
the  same  day,  the  first  three  resolutions  were  accepted 
without  opposition.  In  other  words,  after  all  the 
condemnation  heaped  upon  the  compromise  during 
the  summer  and  fall  campaign,  not  a  single  voice  was 


1,1  Debates  and  Proceedings,  p.  9. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


333 


raised  in  the  convention  against  the  resolutions  accept¬ 
ing  that  compromise.  On  December  14,  a  long  debate 
occurred  on  the  fourth  resolution,  which  dealt  with 
the  powers  of  Congress  over  slavery  in  the  District 
of  Columbia.  Some  differences  developed  between 
members  of  the  Union  party  as  to  whether  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  slaveholders  in  the  District  would  give 
Congress  the  right  to  abolish  slavery  therein.  The 
question  was  also  raised,  whether  the  mere  emancipa¬ 
tion  of  four  or  five  hundred  slaves  there  would  be  a 
good  cause  for  secession.  The  debate  was  notable  for 
the  statement  of  Bailey,  an  extremist,  that,  while  the 
majority  might  ridicule  them,  the  minority  of  twenty- 
three  would  again  appeal  these  issues  to  the  people. 
The  end  of  the  struggle  was  not  yet  !172 

This  discussion  of  the  fourth  resolution  also  eli¬ 
cited  the  most  fervent  eulogies  of  the  Union  which  the 
convention  was  to  hear.  An  interesting  illustration 
of  this  loyalty  to  the  Union  was  afforded  by  the 
speech  of  Bartow,  of  Chatham.  In  a  moment  of  haste 
he  referred  inadvertently  to  “our  Southern  confeder¬ 
acy,”  but  immediately  checked  himself  and  exclaimed : 

“I  ask  pardon,  sir,  of,  you  and  this  House  for  using  the  ex¬ 
pression,  ‘Southern  Confederacy.’  It  inadvertently  escaped  my 
lips,  for  if  there  is  any  feeling  of  my  heart  more  cherished  than 
another  it  is  that  the  day  may  never  come  when’  we  shall  have 
in  this  land  a  Southern  Confederacy,  or  a  Northern  Confeder¬ 
acy,  or  any  other  Confederacy  than  the  glorious  Union  in  which 
we  now  live.  May  God  preserve  the  Union  of  these  states 
forever.” 

The  fourth  and  fifth  resolutions  were  finally  adopt¬ 
ed  by  the  usual  overwhelmnig  majorities.  New  and 
radical  resolutions  proposed  by  W.  J.  Lawton,  the 
same  who  had  proposed  similarly  radical  resolutions 


112  Ibid.,  p.  17. 


334 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


in  the  legislatures  of  both  1847  and  1849,  were  then 
promptly  defeated.  After  accepting  a  resolution  to 
inscribe  the  Georgia  stone  for  the  Washington  Monu¬ 
ment  with  the  words  “Georgia  Convention,  December, 
1850,”173  and  brief  congratulatory  addresses  by  the 
presiding  officers,  the  convention  adjourned  December 
14,  sine  die.17i 

The  assembling  of  delegates  from  all  over  the 
state,  divided  between  the  Union  and  the  southern- 
rights  groups,  was  naturally  the  occasion  of  the  final 
organization  of  these  groups  into  new  political  par¬ 
ties.  Arnold,  for  instance,  upon  arriving  as  a  dele¬ 
gate  at  Milledgeville,  was  surprised  by  the  extent  to 
which  the  new  party  lines  had  drawn  fast.  There  was 
already,  he  found,  an  “impassable  gulf”  between  the 
southern-rights  and  the  Union  Democrats.  Campbell, 
an  editor  of  the  Federal  Union,  minimized  this  separa¬ 
tion,  remarking  to  Arnold,  “Oh,  we  will  all  fall  back 
into  line” ;  but  Arnold  denied  this.  Upon  taking  dinner 
with  Towns,  he  and  Ward  had  a  long,  “personally 
friendly  talk”  with  the  Governor,  but  told  him  frankly 
that  they  and  the  other  Union  Democrats  could  no 
longer  support  him  politically.  Towns  seemed  “aw¬ 
fully  cut”  by  the  results  of  the  late  election  and  the 
character  of  the  convention.175 

During  the  sessions  of  the  convention  the  Union 
men  took  advantage  of  their  practical  monopoly  of  the 
membership  to  meet  several  times  in  general  caucus. 
The  chief  meeting  held  formally  to  organize  the  Union 

173  This  resolution  was  never  carried  out,  and  as  a  result  the  radical 
inscription  prescribed  by  Governor  Towns  (“The  Constitution  as  it  is, 
the  Union  as  it  was”)  was  inscribed  and  remains  on  the  Georgia  stone 
to  this  day.  See  A.  C.  Cole,  “Inscribed  Stones  in  the  Washington  Monu¬ 
ment,”  History  Teachers’  Magazine,  III.  49. 

171  Debates  and  Proceedings,  p.  25. 

175  Arnold  to  Forney,  December  18,  1850,  Arnold  MSS. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


335 


party  met  in  the  House  chamber  on  the  evening  of  the 
eleventh,  and  Toombs  made  a  great  Union  speech  ap¬ 
propriate  to  the  occasion.176  He  proclaimed  the  prin¬ 
ciples  of  the  new  Union  party  and  made  an  inspiring 
appeal  for  its  support.177  Plans  were  subsequently 
made  for  a  state-wide  organization  and  for  the  usual 
machinery  of  party. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  Southern-rights  party  re¬ 
quired  no  such  spectacular  manner  of  organization,  as 
the  elimination  of  the  Union  Democrats  had  left  to 
the  southern-rights  group  the  majority  of  the  leaders 
who  controlled  the  old  Democratic  machine.  In  the 
course  of  the  year  that  followed,  the  moderate  policy 
of  these  leaders  attracted  back  into  the  party  some  of 
the  Democrats  who  had  failed  to  support  the  Southern- 
rights  ticket  in  the  convention  election.  Hence  the 
Southern-rights  party  was  practically  created  by  the 
negative  process  of  eliminating  the  more  conservative 
Union  element  rather  than  by  the  state-wide  forma¬ 
tion  of  the  southern-rights  societies,  which  had  been 
originally  suggested. 

The  new  parties  had  now  been  finally  formed ;  the 
convention  had  met;  and  the  Union  party,  which  con¬ 
trolled  it,  had  declared  for  the  compromise  as  a  last 

1,6  For  Toomb’s  speech  and  the  other  proceedings  of  the  Union  party 
caucus  see  Washington  Republic,  December  30,  1850.  Toomb’s  opening 
words  are  suggestive  of  those  of  Lincoln’s  famous  Gettysburg  Address 
of  later  years.  Toombs  began  with  the  declaration:  “Sixty-three  years 
ago  our  fathers  joined  together  to  form  a  more  perfect  Union,  and  to 
establish  justice.  .  .  .  We  have  now  met  to  put  that  government  on  trial. 
...  In  my  opinion  judgment  the  verdict  is  such  as  to  give  hope  to  the 
friends  of  liberty  throughout  the  world.” 

177  Toombs  closing  words  in  this  great  address  were  tragic  ones  in  the 
light  of  his  later  irreconcilable  attitude  towards  the  Union  government. 
“No  man”,  he  exclaimed,  “rejoices  more  in  the  prosperity  of  his  native 
state  than  I  do,  no  man  can  be  more  jealous  of  her  honor.  But  I  am 
also  an  American.  I  am  proud  of  every  battlefield  of  the  Revolution 
that  reflects  honor  on  my  country — it  is  all,  all  my  country !  Let  us 
then  bind  ourselves  together  and  take  counsel  how  we  may  best  pre¬ 
serve  our  rights  and  the  integrity  of  the  Republic,  now  and  forever  1” 


336 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


concession.  Now  that  Georgia  had  taken  official 
action,  what  response  would  that  action  meet  with 
throughout  the  nation? 

The  chief  significance  of  the  convention,  so  far  as 
Georgia  itself  was  concerned,  lay  not  only  in  the  deci¬ 
sion  against  disunion,  but  in  the  formal  organization  of 
the  Union  party.  Two  distinct  reactions  were  to  be 
noted  in  the  southern-rights  press  of  the  state,  the  one 
from  the  moderate  and  the  other  from  the  more  ex¬ 
treme  papers.  The  moderate  journals  immediately  ac¬ 
cepted  the  “Platform”  adopted.  This  was  easy  for 
them  to  do,  because,  as  the  Federal  Union  had  early 
pointed  out,  the  Union  men  had  come  to  take  a  stronger 
stand  against  the  North  than  had  been  anticipated.178 
The  difference  between  the  secessionist  position  and 
that  of  the  Georgia  Platform  was  only  that  the  first 
meant  secession  at  once ;  the  second,  secession  upon 
the  next  serious  provocation.  This  meant  a  vital  dif¬ 
ference  in  immediate  action,  but  little  variation  in  prin¬ 
ciple.  The  reaction  of  the  Georgian  was  typical,  when 
it  declared  it  would  accept  the  new  Platform,  but  that 
all  its  pledges  must  be  sacredly  observed.179 

The  few  out  and  out  secessionist  papers  condemned 
the  Georgia  Platform.  The  Macon  T elegraph  declared 
it  had  “no  spirit — it  is  too  prudent  to  mean  any¬ 
thing.  A  more  objectionable  paper  was  never  written 
in  Georgia.”180  “Georgia  has  backed  down  from  her 
lofty  resolves,”  observed  the  Columbus  Times.181  These 
same  papers  also  sneered  at  the  convention  as  having- 
met  only  to  form  a  Union  party — a  “Whiggery  in  dis¬ 
guise”  that  would  provide  offices  for  its  leaders.  Simi- 

3,8  Federal  Union,  November  12,  1850. 

179  Savannah  Georgian,  December  23,  1850. 

180  Macon  Telegraph,  in  Savannah  News,  December  19,  1850. 

181  Columbus  Times,  in  Charleston  Mercury,  February  27,  1851. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850  337 

lar  reactions  obtained  in  the  more  extreme  papers  of 
the  sister  states. 

The  Union  press  in  Georgia,  of  course,  praised  en¬ 
thusiastically  all  three  phases  of  the  convention’s  work ; 
first,  the  repudiation  of  disunion  and  the  Georgia  ex¬ 
tremists;  second,  the  warning  to  the  North  and  the 
antislavery  extremists;  and,  third,  the  foundation  of 
a  state  Union  party  to  carry  on  these  excellent  poli¬ 
cies.182 

The  reaction  in  the  Union  press  throughout  the 
rest  of  the  South  was  also  an  enthusiastic  one.  It  was 
the  general  opinion  that  the  “Georgia  Platform”  af¬ 
forded  the  South  a  safe  position  between  the  ’’Ultra- 
ists”  on  the  one  hand  and  the  abolitionists  on  the  other 
— one  upon  which  all  conservative  patriots,  North  and 
South,  could  unite  to  preserve  the  Union.  The  unani¬ 
mity  of  these  opinions  was  impressive.183 

This  reaction  throughout  the  South  led  many  ob¬ 
servers  to  the  conviction  that  the  South  would  now 
unite  on  the  Georgia  Platform,  and  that  to  Georgia, 
therefore,  belonged  the  credit  for  having  saved  the 
Union.  The  Union  men  of  Georgia  were  sure  of  this. 
“Georgia  was  the  first  state  that  would  accept  or  reject 
the  Compromise,”  wrote  Colonel  John  Milledge,  of 
Augusta.  “The  eyes  of  the  world  were  upon  her, 
but  calm  and  inflexible  she  came  forth  in  the  midst  of 
unparalleled  excitement,  holding  in  her  hands  the  des¬ 
tiny  of  this  Empire.  .  .  .  Pier  voice  was  for  peace  and 
the  Union.  She  joined  it  in  i776  and  she  saved  it  in 
1850. ”184  Commenting  on  the  state’s  geographical 

183  For  typical  praise  see  the  Chronicle,  December  15,  1850. 

183  See,  e.g..  Mobile  Daily  Advertiser,  December  20;  Richmond  En¬ 
quirer,  December  13,  24;  Jackson  Flag  of  the  Union,  December  27; 
Natchez  Courier,  January  14,  31,  1851 ;  New  Orleans  Picayune,  Decem¬ 
ber  16,  1850 ;  etc. 

184  John  Milledge  to  the  Committee,  February  20,  1851,  Macon  Union 
Celebration,  p.  20. 


338 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


position,  Washington  Poe  of  Macon  observed  that: 

Georgia  was  the  connecting  link  between  South  Carolina  and 
Alabama,  so  that  a  fire  kindled  in  South  Carolina  would  have 
spread  to  Alabama  and  Mississippi.  But  the  Georgia  State 
Convention  stands  firm.  May  not  Georgia  henceforth  be 
termed  the  preserver  of  the  Union?185 

In  the  North,  the  press  was  convinced  that  the 
Georgia  Platform  was  being  accepted  all  over  the  South 
and  that  this  meant  the  Union  was  to  be  preserved. 
The  Philadelphia  Pennsylvanian  declared  the  Platform 
was  “splendid, — a  rallying  ground  for  all  friends  of 
the  Union.”186  “We  have  never  hailed  a  victory  with 
more  satisfaction,”  exclaimed  the  New  York  Express 
of  the  Georgia  Convention  elections,  “the  Georgia  vic¬ 
tory,  together  with  the  Northern  Union  movement  and 
the  Texan  acceptance  of  the  Congressional  proposal, 
show  the  Union  is  probably  saved.”187  “The  princi¬ 
ples  of  the  Platform,”  observed  the  New  York  Tri¬ 
bune,  “are  held  throughout  the  South  with  great  un¬ 
animity.”188 

Prominent  political  leaders  at  Washington  were 
also  of  the  opinion  that  the  Georgia  Platform  would 
unite  the  South  and  save  the  Union.  Senator  Dawson 
wrote  from  Washington:  “Her  [Georgia’s]  Platform, 
as  it  has  been  called,  will  command  the  support  of  the 
majority  of  the  people  in  the  Union;  ...  by  it  har¬ 
mony  has  been  in  a  great  measure  restored.”189  James 
Brooks,  congressman  from  New  York,  wrote  to  the 
Georgia  conservatives : 

185  Ibid.,  p.  40. 

188  Philadelphia  Pennsylvanian,  in  Washington  Union,  December  28, 
1850. 

187  New  York  Express,  in  the  Savannah  News,  December  4,  1850. 

138  New  York  Tribune,  December  6,  1850.  (Referring  to  the  “Chat¬ 
ham  Platform”). 

189  W.  C.  Dawson  to  the  Committee,  February  17,  1851;  Macon  Union 
Celebration,  pp.  8,  9. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


339 


I  look  upon  your  stand,  considering  the  crisis,  as  the  most 
important  ever  taken  in  the  country,  for  while  you  resisted  and 
overwhelmed  disunion,  you  also  marked  out  the  true  chart  of 
the  Union.  Had  Georgia  taken  the  lead  that  was  proffered  I 
should  have  despaired  of  shutting  the  flood-gates  of  passion 
that  were  sure  to  open.190 

Indeed,  all  the  conservative  leaders  at  the  capital 
were  greatly  relieved  and  encouraged  by  Georgia’s 
stand.  “The  name  of  Georgia  is  in  everybody’s 
mouth,”  wrote  the  correspondent  of  the  Savannah 
Republican,  “all  praise  the  industry  and  patriotism 
that  have  placed  her  in  her  present  proud  position.191 
General  Cass  can  scarcely  talk  of  anything  else.  It  is 
believed  that  Georgia  has  fought  and  won  the  battle 
at  the  South  if  the  friends  of  the  Union  will  only 
follow  up  her  victory.”192  Probably  the  most  inter¬ 
esting  testimony  to  this  effect,  finally,  was  that  given 
by  the  Great  Compromiser  himself.  Writing  to  the 
Macon  Union  meeting  during  the  following  February, 
Henry  Clay  declared : 

When  the  calm  judgment  of  the  people  was  to  be  passed  upon 
the  Compromise  all  eyes  were  turned  to  Georgia,  and  all  hearts 
palpitated  with  intense  anxiety  as  to  her  decision.  Ultraism 
had  concentrated  its  treasonable  hopes  upon  that  decision.  I 
never  doubted  it.  ...  I  knew  many  of  the  prominent  citi¬ 
zens  and  .  .  .  their  devotion  to  the  Union.  ...  At 

length  Georgia  announced  her  deliberate  judgment.  ...  It 
diffused  inexpressible  joy  among  the  friends  of  the  Union 
throughout  the  land.  It  crushed  the  spirit  of  discord,  disunion 
and  Civil  War.193 

190  James  Brooks,  February  17,  1851,  quoted  in  the  Savannah  Repub¬ 
lican,  March  7,  1851. 

191  The  tendency  to  couple  references  to  Georgia’s  “prosperity”  with 
references  to  her  “patriotism”  is  suggestive. 

192  Republican,  January  3,  1851. 

193  Henry  Clay,  February  13,  1851,  to  the  Committee,  Macon  Union 
Celebration,  p.  3. 


340 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Such  opinions  suggest  that  the  Union  victory  in 
Georgia  was  a  prime  factor  in  the  preservation  of  the 
Union  in  1850.  This  becomes  clearer,  when  it  is  re¬ 
called  that  the  decision  of  Georgia  left  but  two  states 
likely  to  secede,  South  Carolina  and  Mississippi.  It 
was  highly  improbable  that  any  combination  of  these 
twain  could  become  effective  so  long  as  conservative 
Georgia  and  Alabama  lay  between.  The  secessionists 
thought  at  one  time,  as  was  pointed  out  in  connection 
with  Seabrook’s  correspondence,  that  if  South  Caro¬ 
lina  only  started,  Georgia  would  follow.  That  illusion 
was  well  dissipated  by  December,  1850.  The  attitude 
of  the  conservatives  in  Georgia  toward  an  independent 
secession  movement  in  South  Carolina  was  not  to  be 
mistaken.  “If  South  Carolina  secedes,”  declared  the 
Macon  Journal ,  “we  must  stand  by  the  Union.  .  .  . 
If  a  conflict  of  arms  comes  .  .  .  we  owe  no  allegiance 
to  South  Carolina  but  we  do  to  the  Union.  It  would 
be  treasonable  even  for  individuals  to  cooperate  with 
South  Carolina.”194 

Georgia  was  fairly  credited,  then,  with  having 
done  much  to  save  the  Union.  It  was  also  credited  with 
having  done  much  to  unite  the  South.  There  were  some 
capable  observers  who  believed  this  to  be  the  case 
months  and  even  years  after  the  opinions  already  quot¬ 
ed  had  been  expressed.  Thus  Bishop  Capers,  of  the 
Methodist  Church  in  South  Carolina,  warned  that 
state  in  1851  that  the  Georgia  Platform  voiced  the 
opinion  of  the  South.195  No  less  an  “Ultraist”  than 
Yancey,  of  Alabama,  expressed  five  years  later  the 
opinion  that  the  South  became  almost  united  upon  the 

“‘Macon  Journal,  in  Boston  Courier,  December  18,  1851.  The  fear 
that  this  would  be  the  Georgia  attitude  was  expressed  in  the  South 
Carolina  legislature  that  was  deciding  that  state’s  final  position. 

185  Columbia  South  Carolinian,  March  7,  1851. 


THE  CLEARING,  1850 


341 


Georgia  Platform,  once  the  extremists  had  failed  to 
carry  immediate  secession.196  Within  Georgia  itself,  as 
will  be  seen,  many  of  the  southern-rights  group  ac¬ 
cepted  it  and  considered  themselves  as  well  as  the 
North  to  be  bound  by  its  principles.  Not  only  did  Cobb, 
the  Union  party  governor  from  1851  to  1853,  hold  to 
the  Platform,  but  Herschel  V.  Johnson,  Democratic 
governor  from  1853  to  1857,  continued  to  consider 
himself  bound  by  it  as  late  as  I860.197 

Any  evaluation  of  the  influence  exerted  by  the 
Georgia  Platform  in  uniting  the  South  must,  of  course, 
consider  two  facts  limiting  its  significance.  In  the 
first  place,  the  principles  it  embodied  can  hardly  be 
said  to  have  been  peculiar  to  Georgia  in  1850.  To 
some  extent,  at  least,  the  Platform  simply  expressed, 
rather  than  determined,  feeling  in  the  lower  South. 
In  the  second  place,  the  degree  of  unity  achieved  upon 
this  Platform  was  limited  by  the  fact  that  the  sec¬ 
tional  issue  might  eventually  take  forms  which  those 
who  built  the  Platform  did  not  and,  indeed,  could  not 
anticipate.  In  case  such  unforeseen  contingencies 
arose,  southerners  who  agreed  upon  the  Georgia  reso¬ 
lutions  might  well  disagree  upon  new  problems. 

Yet  those  who  felt  that  the  Platform  had  “unified” 
the  South  were  probably  correct  in  a  measure.  The 
very  fact  that  it  did  give  forceful  expression  to  the 
half-formed  convictions  of  many  southern  people,  and 
the  spectacular  circumstances  attending  the  formation 
of  the  Platform,  were  both  calculated  to  exert  some  in- 

M6  W.  L.  Yancey  to  W.  H.  Worthington,  June  23,  1855,  quoted  in 
DuBose,  Yancey,  p,  295. 

197  Johnson,  although  he  had  been  a  leader  of  the  state-rights  ele¬ 
ment  in  the  Georgia  Democracy  in  1849,  held  as  late  as  1860  that  the 
state  was  “bound”  by  the  Georgia  Platform ;  see  “From  the  Autobio¬ 
graphy  of  Hershel  V.  Johnson,”  American  Historical  Review,  XXX. 
314,  318.  The  portions  of  this  autobiography  relating  to  the  years  prior 
to  1856  are,  unfortunately,  not  yet  available  for  examination. 


342 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


fluence  upon  southern  opinion.  That  there  were  con¬ 
tingencies  in  the  future  which  the  Platform  could  not 
be  framed  to  meet,  moreover,  did  not  entirely  divest 
of  significance  the  fact  that  there  were  a  number  of 
specific  contingencies  for  which  it  did  provide.  To 
the  extent  that  the  South  accepted  the  Georgia  Plat¬ 
form,  it  was  united  in  proclaiming  to  the  North  that 
there  were  at  least  four  specific  acts  which  must  not 
be  attempted  if  the  Union  were  to  be  preserved.  These 
acts  were  the  ones  which  the  South  most  feared  in  1850 
would  mark  any  further  northern  “encroachments” 
upon  “southern  rights.”  The  measure  of  the  influence 
of  the  Platform  in  the  South  was  thus  the  measure  of 
a  defensive  unity  against  such  specific  dangers  as  were 
then  apprehended.198 

The  Georgia  Union  victory  had  done  much  to 
check  the  extremists  of  South  Carolina.  It  had  done 
something  to  unify  the  South  against  the  extremists  of 
the  North.  In  the  one  way,  as  in  the  other,  it  played 
an  important  part  in  saving  the  Union  of  the  states. 
There  was  some  truth  in  Colonel  Milledge’s  heroic  de¬ 
claration:  “She  joined  it  in  i776  and  she  saved  it  in 
1850 ” 

188  Cf.  C.  S.  Boucher,  “In  Re  That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  Missis¬ 
sippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  VIII.  58,  59. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 

The  advent  of  the  year  1851  found  the  political 
situation  in  Georgia  unique  in  every  respect  but  one; 
namely,  that  the  new  party  alignments  were  as  usual 
more  or  less  unstable.  The  decision  of  the  people  to 
stand  by  the  Union  had  apparently  been  proclaimed 
beyond  question,  but  it  was  by  no  means  certain  just 
what  turn  political  developments  would  take.  To  all 
appearances  the  party  which  had  suffered  the  most 
as  the  result  of  the  sectional  storm  was  the  Democratic, 
which  had  lost  at  least  half  its  potential  vote  in  the 
elections  for  the  state  convention ;  while  the  Whigs 
not  only  held  to  the  new  Union  party  most  of  their  own 
vote,  but  had  added  to  it  a  goodly  share  of  that  which 
normally  belonged  to  their  opponents.  There  was  some 
poetic  justice  in  this  situation,  to  be  sure,  in  view  of 
the  fact  that  the  Democratic  leaders  had  been  the  prime 
movers  in  demanding  new  party  formations  and  had 
doubtless  intended  that  the  realignment  should  redound 
to  their  own  advantage,  in  case  it  did  not  actually  carry 
the  state  out  of  the  Union.  In  a  word,  those  Demo¬ 
cratic  leaders  who  had  not  so  completely  dedicated 
themselves  to  “secession  per  se”  as  to  be  truly  above 
party  had  hoped  that  the  Democracy,  under  the  guise 
of  “southern-rights,”  would  swallow  Whiggery.  The 
actual  outcome,  however,  had  been  that  Whiggery, 
under  the  guise  of  the  Union  party,  had  nearly  swal¬ 
lowed  the  Democracy. 

The  obvious  remedy  for  this  was  for  the  latter  to 
withdraw  from  the  position  which  had  so  weakened  it. 


344 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  Georgia  people  were  evidently  opposed  to  secession 
and  just  as  evidently  in  favor  of  the  Georgia  Platform. 
Democratic  editors,  therefore,  hastened  during  the 
winter  that  followed  the  state  convention  to  deny  that 
the  southern-rights  group  ever  had  favored  secession.1 
In  addition  to  this,  they  promptly  accepted  the  Plat¬ 
form  as  the  will  of  the  people — an  acceptance  which 
could  be  granted  with  a  good  countenance  in  view  of 
the  “southern  spirit”  of  its  resolutions.2  Having  ac¬ 
cepted  the  convention  resolutions  and  vehemently  de¬ 
nied  any  intention  to  urge  secession,  the  southern- 
rights  Democrats  next  declared  that,  in  view  of  these 
moves,  there  was  no  raison  d’etre  for  a  Union  party  in 
the  state.  Why  a  party  in  favor  of  the  Union  when  no 
one  was  against  it?  They  consequently  invited  all 
Union  Democrats  to  return  to  the  party  fold.  As  the 
year  progressed  some  of  the  editors  even  dropped  the 
party  appellation  of  “Southern-rights”  and  reassumed 
that  of  “Democratic.”3  This  move  was  doubtless  has¬ 
tened  by  a  desire  to  maintain  contacts  with  the  conser¬ 
vative  northern  Democracy. 

The  small  group  of  out-and-out  secessionists  within 
the  Georgia  Democracy  was,  to  be  sure,  disinclined  to 
reestablish  the  old  party  name  and  organization.  The 
events  of  the  fall  could  not  change  their  conviction  that 
the  struggle  between  the  sections  was  inevitable  and 
that  the  sooner  the  South  organized  to  meet  it  the 
better.  “As  was  to  have  been  expected,”  observed  the 
Columbus  Sentinel,  “the  storm  which  has  just  passed 
over  our  state  has  been  succeeded  by  a  calm.  It  is  the 
calm  of  preparation,  and  not  of  peace ;  a  cessation,  not 
an  end  of  the  controversy.  The  recent  election  deter- 

1  Federal  Union,  January  14,  21,  1851. 

3  Federal  Union,  February  4;  April  1,  1851. 

s  See,  e.g.,  Savannah  News,  December  3,  1850. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


345 


mines  only  a  question  of  time.  .  .  .  The  elements  of 
that  controversy  are  yet  alive  and  they  are  destined  yet 
to  outlive  the  government.  There  is  a  feud  between 
the  North  and  the  South  which  may  be  smothered,  but 
never  overcome.”4 

It  was  to  such  sentiments  that  the  Whigs  pointed 
when  the  Democrats  inquired  their  reasons  for  main¬ 
taining  the  Union  party.  The  small  but  active  group 
of  secessionists  had  not  been  converted  by  the  fall  elec¬ 
tions,  declared  the  Union  men,  but  had  been  merely 
driven  under  cover ;  and  some  organization  of  the  con¬ 
servatives  was  necessary  to  keep  them  there.  There 
was  some  truth  in  this  declaration,  and  there  is  no 
question  that  it  was  made  in  all  sincerity  by  the  Union 
rank  and  file.5 

On  the  other  hand,  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the 
Georgia  Whig  leaders  had  no  such  hope  of  maintaining 
old  contacts  with  the  northern  wing  of  their  party  as 
had  the  Georgia  Democrats,  and  that  it  was  therefore 
to  Whig  interests  to  maintain  the  new  and  popular 
Union  party  rather  than  to  revert  to  the  now  impossible 
Whig  organization.  This  situation  lent  at  least  some 
truth  to  the  Democratic  indictment  of  the  Union  party 
as  “a  mere  Whiggery  in  disguise.”6 

The  Union  Democrats,  meanwhile,  were  no  more 
in  a  mood  to  reassume  old  party  lines  than  were  the 
Whigs.  They  distrusted  the  Southern-rights  group 
for  the  same  reasons  as  did  the  Whigs  and  were  indeed 
inclined  to  feel  more  strongly  in  this  matter  than  were 

‘Columbus  Sentinel  in  the  Charleston  Mercury,  January  23,  1851. 

5  For  a  typical  statement  of  the  Union  position  see  Savannah  Repub¬ 
lican,  January  6,  1851.  See  also  Columbus  Enquirer  in  the  Republican, 
April  17,  1851. 

4  When  the  Macon  Journal  boasted  that  the  Georgia  Union  party 
had  the  approval  of  the  Fillmore  administration,  the  Federal  Union  re¬ 
plied  (February  11,  1851)  that  this  proved  that  said  party  was  simply 
the  old  Whig  organization. 


346 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  latter.  The  years  of  intra-party  strife  which  had 
preceded  the  final  break  in  Democratic  ranks  had  not 
inclined  the  conservative  element  to  a  hasty  reconcilia¬ 
tion,  once  the  separation  had  been  accomplished.7  The 
Union  Democrats  had  no  intention  of  allowing  their 
separation  from  the  rest  of  the  state  party  to  cut  them 
off  from  the  national  body.  They  naturally  had  to  con¬ 
sider,  however,  the  possibility  of  finding  some  national 
affiliation  which  would  be  acceptable  to  their  new  asso¬ 
ciates  within  the  state.  The  obvious  solution  to  this 
difficulty  seemed  to  lie  in  the  formation  of  a  national 
Union  party,  which  the  conservative  northern  Demo¬ 
crats  could  join  simultaneously  with  conservative 
Whigs  and  southern  Democrats.  The  large  Whig 
element  in  the  Georgia  Union  party  was  more  than 
willing  to  work  for  such  a  national  organization  be¬ 
cause  of  that  impossibility  of  a  reunion  with  northern 
Whiggery,  which  has  already  been  mentioned.  There 
was  much  talk  early  in  the  winter  of  1851,  therefore, 
of  the  formation  of  a  great  national  Union  party.8 
This  move  received  some  support  from  northern  con¬ 
servatives,  who  still  feared  the  danger  of  secession  and 
civil  war.9 

As  the  months  passed,  however,  it  became  apparent 
that  the  Union  Democrats  of  Georgia  were  less  inter¬ 
ested  in  the  projected  national  Union  party  than  they 
were  in  preserving  their  old  contacts  with  the  safe 
northern  Democracy.  While  Toombs  and  Stephens, 
for  instance,  were  working  in  Congress  for  the  form¬ 
ation  of  the  new  party,  Cobb  took  the  position  that  if 
both  the  old  parties  could  be  dominated  by  conserva- 

7  Athens  Banner,  in  the  Savannah  Republican,  March  13,  1851. 

8  See,  e.g.,  Macon  Journal,  in  the  Chronicle,  December  28,  1850. 

9  See  R.  F.  Nichols,  The  Democratic  Machine,  1850-1854,  pp.  26,  27. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


347 


tives,  there  was  no  necessity  for  a  third  organization.10 

The  lack  of  interest  displayed  by  conservative 
Democrats  of  both  sections  in  the  proposed  national 
coalition  party  was  an  important  factor  in  the  failure 
of  the  southern  Whigs,  led  in  Congress  by  Clay, 
Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Foote,  to  establish  a  successful 
organization.  The  Georgia  Whigs  greatly  regretted 
this  failure,  ostensibly  and  perhaps  sincerely  because 
they  feared  the  reversal  to  the  old  parties  would  mean 
the  reappearance  of  sectional  strife.11  It  is  no  doubt 
fair  to  assume,  however,  that  their  regret  was  also  due 
in  no  small  measure  to  the  failure  of  the  proposed  or¬ 
ganization  to  afford  them  a  place  of  safe  national  at¬ 
tachment. 

This  situation,  while  most  embarrasing  to  the  Geor¬ 
gia  Whigs,  was  not  without  its  difficulties  for  the 
Union  Democrats.  They,  to  be  sure,  could  trust  the 
northern  wing  of  their  party,  but  would  that  wing 
trust  them?  In  a  word,  if  the  national  Democracy  was 
sufficiently  conservative  to  be  maintained,  which  fac¬ 
tion  of  the  old  Georgia  Democracy  would  this  national 
organization  recognize  as  comprising  the  legitimate 
state  party?  The  Southern-rights  party  was  certain 
to  claim  exclusive  legitimacy,  basing  its  claim  on  the 
undeniable  fact  that  it  possessed  the  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  old  state  organization.  This  claim  was 
bound  to  receive  sympathetic  consideration  in  some 
quarters.  Indeed,  the  winter  had  barely  begun  before 
efforts  were  being  made  in  the  inner  circles  of  the 
national  Democracy  to  reinstate  the  southern-rights 
element  throughout  the  South  to  full  fellowship.12 

10  Cf.,  e.g.,  the  letters  of  Cobb  and  Toombs  in  the  Macon  Union  Cele¬ 
bration,  pp.  6,  7. 

11  Savannah  Republican,  January  16,  1851. 

12  For  an  interesting  letter  illustrating  this  effort,  see  Duff  Green  to 
L.  S.  Coryell,  November  21,  1850,  Coryell  MSS. 


348 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


The  Georgia  Union  Democrats  accordingly  prepared 
to  combat  this  claim  of  their  local  enemies  to  national 
recognition  and  to  remind  the  party  chieftains  that  it 
was  but  a  few  months  since  that  the  Southern-rights 
group  in  Georgia  had  urged  the  abandonment  of  both 
the  old  parties.  The  conservative  Democrats,  they 
claimed,  were  the  only  real  Democrats.13 

Such  was  the  general  party  situation  in  Georgia 
during  the  winter  of  1851.  The  Union  and  Southern- 
rights  parties14  were  evidently  organized  to  meet  the 
exigencies  of  the  state  and  sectional  situation  and  just 
as  obviously  were  not  adapted  to  the  national  situa¬ 
tion,  once  the  conservative  Whigs  and  Democrats  had 
failed  to  expand  their  state  organization  into  a  national 
Union  coalition.  It  was  inevitable,  therefore,  that  the 
state  parties  born  of  the  1850  struggle  should  be  short¬ 
lived,  their  decease  being  certain  as  soon  as  the  pres¬ 
sure  of  national  political  interests  became  greater  than 
that  of  the  local. 

It  happened,  however,  that  no  national  campaign 
was  due  in  1851.  This  left  the  infant  state  parties  this 
one  year,  during  which  the  election  of  the  governor 
and  legislature  were  again  in  order,  and  when,  there¬ 
fore,  state  issues  would  be  emphasized  and  the  parties 
based  thereon  temporarily  preserved. 

The  refusal  of  the  Union  Democrats  to  accept  im¬ 
mediately  the  invitation  for  reunion  extended  by  the 
southern-rights  element  was  the  first  sign  that  the 
new  parties  were  to  persist  throughout  the  year.  The 

13  R.  D.  Arnold  to  J.  W.  Forney,  June  17,  1851,  Arnold  MSS. 

14  These  relatively  simple  names  will  be  used  here  as  a  matter  of  con¬ 
venience.  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  formal  names  employed  by  the  two 
organizations  were  confusingly  (and  deliberately)  similar,  made  so  by 
respective  efforts  to  steal  the  thunder  of  one  another’s  slogans.  The 
Union  party,  e.g.,  referred  to  itself  at  times  as  the  “Union  and  Southern 
Rights  Party,”  see  Savannah  News,  December  3,  1850.  Its  more  com¬ 
monly  used  name  was  the  “Constitutional  Union”  party. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


349 


second  was  to  be  observed  in  the  determination  of  the 
Whig  element  in  the  state  Union  party  to  maintain  that 
organization,  despite  the  failure  to  connect  it  with  a 
similar  national  machine.  The  two  conservative  groups 
openly  proclaimed  their  intention  to  “carry  on”  for  the 
Union  at  an  elaborate  affair  held  at  Macon  on  Wash¬ 
ington’s  birthday.  This  “Macon  Union  Celebration” 
proved  a  happy  love-feast  for  the  new  allies.  Many 
able  Georgia  men  attended,  and  the  national  leaders 
who  could  not  be  present  supplemented  the  speeches  of 
the  day  with  elaborate  letters  which  were  read  to  those 
assembled.15  Perhaps  the  most  significant  of  the  num¬ 
erous  toasts  drunk  upon  this  exhilarating  occasion  was 
that  which  declared  in  the  following  words  the  new 
coalition’s  attitude  toward  the  old  parties : 

The  Old  Parties:  The  hot-beds  in  which  are  grown  Aboli¬ 
tionists  in  the  North  and  Ultraism  in  the  South.  It  is  vain  for 
a  rational  people  to  quarrel  about  Whiggery  and  Democracy 
when  they  are  in  danger  of  having  no  government  to  which  to 
apply  their  favorite  theories.16 

The  southern-rights  Democrats  having  failed  to 
break  up  the  Union  coalition,17  it  was  necessary  for 


15  See  Union  Celebration  in  Macon,  Georgia,  on  the  Anniversary  of 
Washington’s  Birthday,  February  22,  1851,  (herein  cited  as  Macon  Union 
Celebration) ,  passim.  See  also  U.  B.  Phillips,  Robert  Toombs,  p.  100. 
The  southern-rights  press  declared  the  meeting  “a  miserable  failure” ; 
Federal  Union,  February  25,  1851. 

16  Other  typical  toasts  were  the  following:  “The  Union  Party  of 
Georgia:  It  has  blotted  out  all  party  distinctions”;  “Robert  Toombs, 
Howell  Cobb  and  Alexander  Stephens,  the  rising  statesmen  of  the 
South:  A  noble  triumvirate  of  talent  and  true  chivalry,”  etc.  Not  the 
least  interesting  was  one  which  called  attention  to  the  importance  of 
Georgia’s  economic  position  in  connection  with  the  general  political 
controversy:  “Georgia,  the  Empire  State  of  the  South:  Her  railroads 
and  manufactures  speak  to  the  northern  states  in  arguments  .  .  . 
louder  than  the  cannon's  roar.” 

17  The  only  exception  to  this  statement  is  to  be  found  in  the  fact  that 
the  Democrats  did  poll  nearly  their  normal  vote,  running  under  their 
old  name,  in  certain  local  elections,  as  e.g.,  in  that  held  in  Savannah. 
December  2,  1850.  See  Savannah  News,  December  3,  1850. 


350 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


both  these  groups  to  hold  state  conventions  early  in 
the  summer  of  1851  in  order  to  nominate  a  ticket  and 
to  formulate  a  platform  for  the  coming  state  campaign. 
The  Southern-rights  conclave  assembled  on  May  28, 
and  was  naturally  made  up  largely  of  Democrats.  The 
little  group  of  old  state-rights  Whigs  was  quite  active, 
however,  and  James  M.  Smythe,  their  leader,  served 
as  president  of  the  meeting.18  State-rights  resolutions 
were  passed,  but  proved  on  the  whole  to  be  of  a  gen¬ 
erally  moderate  character.  The  most  significant  resolu¬ 
tion  adopted  was  one  proclaiming  the  “sovereign”  ( i.e 
the  constitutional)  right  of  a  state  to  secede  from  the 
Union,  when  its  people  were  acting  in  their  “sovereign 
capacity.”  No  desire  to  exercise  this  right  in  the  imme¬ 
diate  future,  however,  was  expressed.  Charles  J.  Mc¬ 
Donald,  sometime  fire-eating  president  of  the  second 
session  of  the  Nashville  Convention,  was  nominated 
for  the  governorship  without  serious  opposition.19 

The  resolutions  adopted  clearly  indicated  that  the 
party’s  strategy  would  be  characterized  by  a  return  to 
the  policies  of  1849.  These  policies  had  been  success¬ 
ful  in  the  latter  year  for  the  reason  that  they  had  fea¬ 
tured  the  appeal  for  southern-rights — which  proved  a 
popular  one — at  the  same  time  that  they  avoided  the 
appeal  for  immediate  secession — which  proved  in  1850 
to  be  an  unpopular  one.  The  resolution  declaring  the 
merely  abstract  constitutional  right  of  secession  afford¬ 
ed  an  especially  good  illustration  of  this  return  to  old 
policies,  for  it  was  one  which  would  appeal  to  the 
people’s  southern  sentiment  and  which  at  the  same  time 
would  not  offend  their  love  of  the  Union.  This  self- 

18  Berrien,  the  other  leader  of  this  old  Whig  group,  “accepted”  the 
Georgia  Platform,  but  refrained  from  active  cooperation  with  the  Union 
party. 

19  Savannah  Georgian,  May  30,  31  ;  Federal  Union,  June  3,  1851. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


351 


same  abstract  right  had  indeed  been  urged  by  the 
southern-rights  Democrats  in  1849  to  the  embarrass¬ 
ment  of  the  Whigs,  who  were  inclined  to  deny  it,  but 
who  feared  popular  disapproval  for  so  doing.  The 
extremists  now  revived  it  in  1851  with  hopes  of  even 
greater  success,  since  the  Union  Democrats  were  likely 
to  disagree  in  this  matter  with  the  Whigs ;  and  it  was 
hoped  that  the  allies  could  be  split  upon  the  issue.20 

The  Union  party,  meeting  in  convention  early  in 
June,  was  immediately  confronted  by  this  question  of 
the  right  of  secession.  Some  of  the  Union  Democrats 
were  inclined  to  defend  the  abstract  “sovereign  right,” 
while  most  of  the  Whigs  denied  it  and  took  the  view 
that,  if  there  were  any  “right,”  it  was  a  revolutionary 
rather  than  a  constitutional  one.  The  convention  at 
once  realized  that  here  was  a  divergence  of  opinion 
which  could  only  redound  to  the  advantage  of  the 
enemy,  and,  as  a  consequence,  the  subject  was  avoided 
in  the  resolutions  adopted  for  the  campaign.  These 
declared  that  the  Southern-rights  party  was  still  at 
heart  a  secession  party  which,  having  been  defeated 
in  the  open,  was  continuing  by  divers  and  underhand 
methods  to  seek  its  disloyal  ends.  The  fight  to  save  the 
Union  must  be  maintained.  To  lead  this  fight  the 
convention  then  nominated  Howell  Cobb  for  the  gov¬ 
ernorship.21 

Both  gubernatorial  candidates  issued  formal  letters 
of  acceptance,  which  in  each  case  anticipated  the  gen- 

20  The  Southern-rights  party  also  had  other  schemes  for  dividing  the 
allies,  e.g.,  they  demanded  that  the  Union  convention  declare  its  prin¬ 
ciples  on  the  bank,  the  tariff,  etc. — points  upon  which  Whigs  and  Union 
Democrats  would  certainly  have  disagreed.  The  Union  party  press, 
however,  would  not  walk  into  so  obvious  a  trap.  The  reply  was  given 
that  all  such  matters  were  now  dead  issues.  Cf.  the  Savannah  Georgian, 
June  18,  with  the  Republican,  June  19,  1851. 

21  Republican,  June  10;  Federal  Union,  June  10,  1851;  Toombs  to 
Howell  Cobb,  June  9,  1851,  “Cobb  Papers,”  Georgia  Historical  Quar¬ 
terly,  V.  No.  3,  pp.  45,  46. 


352 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


eral  positions  that  their  parties  were  to  take  during" 
the  summer  campaign.  Cobb  emphasized  the  achieve¬ 
ments  of  the  Georgia  Platform,  but  did  not  declare  him¬ 
self  definitely  upon  the  delicate  subject  of  the  right  of 
secession.22  McDonald  condemned  the  Clay  compro¬ 
mise  and  specifically  upheld  the  “sovereign  right”  of 
secession.  He  did  not  make  it  clear  that  he  approved 
the  Georgia  Platform,  though  most  of  his  party’s  jour¬ 
nals  had  done  so.23 

Most  of  the  essential  features  of  the  campaign  that 
followed  have  already  been  suggested.  The  Southern- 
rights  party  exploited  their  advantage  upon  the  right 
of  secession  issue,  profiting  by  their  experience  of 
1849  and  by  the  inability  of  the  Union  party  allies  to 
agree  upon  the  matter.  Cobb,  as  spokesman  for  the 
conservatives,  was  forced  to  straddle  both  views  of 
the  nature  of  the  right,  and,  while  his  utterances  upon 
the  subject  were  marvels  of  sophistical  ingenuity,  they 
were  not  entirely  convincing.24  The  Union  men,  for 
their  part,  continued  their  old  appeal  to  “save  the 
Union,”  profiting  by  their  experience  of  the  preceding 
year  and  practically  repeating  each  argument  which 
they  had  urged  at  that  time.25  Thus  the  campaign 
tactics  of  1849,  which  had  brought  victory  to  the  ex- 

22  Republican,  June  30,  1851. 

23  Federal  Union,  June  17,  1851.  The  Clay  compromise  was  never 
approved  by  the  Southern-rights  group,  even  though  they  had  usually 
accepted  the  Georgia  Platform  which  was  itself  an  acceptance  of  the 
compromise.  The  Savannah  Georgian,  e.g.,  declared  (June  7,  1851)  that 
the  compromise  was  the  “most  outrageous  wrong  ever  perpetrated  in 
legislation.”  Cf.  Arnold  to  Forney,  September  19,  1851,  Arnold  MSS. 

24  For  Southern-rights  ridicule  of  Cobb’s  inconsistencies  see  Federal 
Union,  July  8,  August  19;  Georgian,  August  21,  1851.  For  his  defence 
see  Republican,  July  25,  August  6,  1851.  For  constitutional  arguments 
pro  and  con,  consult  A.  C.  Cole,  “The  South  and  the  Right  of  Seces¬ 
sion,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  I.  388,  ff.  See  also  R.  P. 
Brooks,  “Howell  Cobb  and  the  Crisis  of  1850,”  ibid.,  I.  291,  ff. 

25  See.  e.g.,  issues  of  the  Chronicle  and  Republican  for  July  and  Aug¬ 
ust,  1851. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


353 


tremists,  were  pitted  against  the  tactics  of  1850,  which 
had  brought  triumph  to  the  conservatives. 

McDonald,  as  spokesman  for  the  radicals,  was 
handicapped  by  his  record  as  a  secessionist  leader  in 
the  Nashville  convention  sessions.  This  record  was 
somewhat  inconsistent  with  the  fact  that  his  party’s 
editors  were  now  denying  that  the  southern-rights 
movement  had  ever  been  a  secession  movement.  Here 
was  a  situation  of  which  the  Union  men  hastened  to 
take  advantage.  Whenever  their  enemies  embarrassed 
Cobb  by  asking  what  he  believed  with  regard  to  the 
right  of  secession,  the  conservatives  rejoined  by  ask¬ 
ing  McDonald  what  he  desired  to  do  about  secession. 
The  one  question  was  almost  as  embarrassing,  under 
the  circumstances,  as  the  other.26 

The  campaign  was  one  of  sound  and  fury.  Toombs 
and  Stephens,  who  had  given  their  chief  interest  in 
Congress  during  the  winter  to  the  unsuccessful  effort 
to  organize  a  national  Union  party,  returned  during 
the  summer  to  lend  their  support  to  Cobb  in  the  state 
struggle.  Stephens  was  kept  out  by  illness,  but  Toombs 
outdid  himself,  filling  both  his  own  and  some  of 
Stephens’  engagements.  “Wherever  the  fire-eaters 
have  a  chance,”  he  wrote,  “they  fight  like  the  devil — 
though  we  shall  whip  them  out  all  over  the  state.”27 
Feeling  was  increased  because  southern-rights  Demo¬ 
crats  felt  rather  bitterly  towards  the  Union  Democrats 
as  “deserters,”  while  the  mass  of  the  Whigs  felt  simi¬ 
larly  towards  the  old  southern-rights  wing  of  their 
party.28 

29  See  e.g.,  Athens  Banner  in  Savannah  Republican,  July  1,  1851.  The 
Federal  Union  denied  that  McDonald  “had  ever  desired  secession  now.” 

27  Toombs  to  General  Eli  Warren,  August  19,  1851;  letter  in  posses¬ 
sion  of  Mr.  Warren  Grice,  of  Macon. 

28  R.  D.  Arnold  to  J.  E.  Ward,  Savannah,  September  1,  1851,  Arnold 
MSS. 


354 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Throughout  the  year  conservatives  continued  to 
point  to  the  economic  prosperity  enjoyed  within  the 
Union  as  a  cogent  reason  for  maintaining  that  Union.29 
This  economic  appeal,  in  addition  to  the  more  senti¬ 
mental  arguments  for  preserving  the  old  government, 
proved  effective  in  maintaining  the  alliance  of  the  con¬ 
servatives,  despite  Cobb’s  difficulties  in  the  constitu¬ 
tional  debate.  The  preservation  of  the  alliance,  in 
turn,  made  inevitable  a  Union  victory  in  the  fall,  for 
it  meant  that  the  Southern-rights  party  would  remain 
but  a  part  of  the  old  Democratic  machine.  It  also 
meant  that  the  real  issue  of  the  campaign  remained 
the  Union  issue,  despite  the  efforts  of  the  extremists 
to  avoid  it  and  to  substitute  for  it  that  of  the  right  of 
secession. 

The  state  election  was  held  early  in  October,  1851, 
and  resulted  in  an  overwhelming  Union  victory.  Cobb 
carried  all  but  twenty-one  of  the  ninety-five  counties 
in  the  state  and  had  a  majority  in  the  popular  vote  of 
about  eighteen  thousand.  His  party  also  secured  an 
unprecedented  majority  in  the  legislature  and  elected 
six  out  of  the  eight  congressmen.30  The  county  re¬ 
sults  indicated  that  as  a  rule  only  such  counties  in 
Central  and  Lower  Georgia  as  habitually  went  Demo¬ 
cratic  had  supported  McDonald.31  He  received  prac¬ 
tically  no  support  in  any  of  the  other  sections  of  the 
state. 

29  See  e.g.,  Dr.  Robert  Collins  (of  Macon)  to  the  Committee,  Feb¬ 
ruary  22,  1851,  Macon  Union  Celebration,  p.  44;  Columbus  Times,  in 
Charleston  Mercury,  February  27,  1851.  The  Milledgeville  Southern 
Recorder  declared  in  September  that  Georgia’s  prosperity  demanded  the 
cessation  of  all  agitation.  See  Savannah  Republican,  September  25,  1851. 

30  Federal  Union,  October  14;  Republican,  October  16,  1851. 

31  Cf.  Maps  nos.  5  and  7,  pp.  109,  320,  showing  elections  of  1848  and 
1850,  with  map  of  election  of  1851  given  in  Cole,  Whig  Party  in  the 
South. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


355 


Generally  similar  results  obtained  in  the  state  elec¬ 
tions  held  at  about  the  same  time  in  Alabama  and  Mis¬ 
sissippi.  In  the  former  state  the  Union  group,  led  by 
Hilliard,  won  a  definite  victory  in  the  congressional 
election  over  the  Southern-rights  party  led  by  the  re¬ 
doubtable  Yancey.32  In  Mississippi,  where  the  gov¬ 
ernor  had  duplicated  Towns’  procedure  in  summoning 
a  state  convention,  the  elections  to  this  body  were  held 
in  1851  and  resulted  in  a  Union  party  victory,  much 
as  had  the  analogous  election  in  Georgia  during  the 
preceding  fall.  As  a  result  of  all  these  circumstances, 
the  state  convention  which  met  in  South  Carolina  in 
the  spring  of  1852 — the  last  of  the  state  conventions 
called  in  the  South  to  consider  secession— decided  that 
the  Palmetto  State  would  have  to  remain  in  the  Union 
as  a  matter  of  expediency.33 

The  Union  victories  in  Georgia  and  the  Gulf  states, 
were  therefore  hailed  by  conservative  papers  through¬ 
out  the  country  as  final  evidence  that  the  Union  was 
saved.  This  verdict  was  also  accepted  by  the  more 
moderate  of  the  southern-rights  papers,  although  some 
of  these  expressed  both  regret  and  bitterness  at  the 
undeniably  decisive  character  of  their  defeat.34  “The 
last  two  elections  in  Georgia,”  observed  the  Federal 
Union ,  “have  twice  definitely  settled  all  practical  ques¬ 
tions  in  reference  to  the  Compromise  measures.  .  .  - 
The  South  has  pretty  plainly  shown  that  she  will  not 
secede  from  the  Union.”35 

The  fact  that  the  election  of  1851  finally  confirmed 
the  Union  victory  of  1850  did  not  mean,  however,  that 

32  G.  F.  Mellen,  “Henry  W.  Hilliard  and  W.  L.  Yancey,”  Sewanee 
Review,  XVII.  32-50. 

33  Federal  Union,  May  18,  1852. 

34  Mobile  Register,  in  Mobile  Advertiser,  October  14,  1851. 

35  Federal  Union,  October  21,  1851. 


356 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  efforts  of  McDonald’s  supporters  had  been  made 
entirely  in  vain.  They  had  at  least  continued  the  edu¬ 
cation  of  the  Georgia  people  upon  the  various  prob¬ 
lems  involved  in  the  sectional  controversy — a  process 
which  they  had  now  carried  on  for  several  years,  and 
which  was  to  show  results  in  the  not  very  distant 
future.  Indeed,  it  is  quite  possible  that  they  were  suc¬ 
cessful  in  persuading  a  large  part  of  the  state’s  popu¬ 
lation  of  the  truth  of  their  chief  contention;  that  is, 
that  the  state  had  a  legal  right  to  secede  if  it  so  desired. 
The  Union  leaders  had  not  succeeded  in  defeating  this 
contention,  they  had  only  succeeded  in  subordinating  it 
to  their  own  more  practical  demand ;  namely,  that  the 
Union  must  be  maintained  at  the  time.  In  a  word,  the 
extremists,  in  the  process  of  losing  the  election  of  1851, 
had  prepared  the  way  for  victory  in  1861. 

The  very  finality  of  the  Union  victory  in  the  state, 
moreover,  foreordained  the  disintegration  of  the  Union 
party.  As  the  Federal  Union  observed,  no  one  could 
believe  that  any  large  body  of  citizens  still  desired 
immediate  secession,  and,  if  there  was  no  such  group 
opposed  to  the  Union,  there  was  no  longer  any  raison 
d’etre  for  a  party  whose  prime  purpose  had  been  to 
defend  it.  Democratic  editors  therefore  resumed  in 
1852,  with  an  even  greater  gusto  than  they  had  dis¬ 
played  the  preceding  year,  the  invitation  to  the  Union 
Democrats  to  return  to  the  old  organization.  This  de¬ 
sire  to  reestablish  a  unified  state  Democracy  actually 
led  the  southern-rights  editors  to  emphasize  their  ac¬ 
ceptance  of  the  Georgia  Platform  and  to  decry  any 
further  agitation  of  the  sectional  issue.36 

This  attitude  immediately  alarmed  the  Whigs  of 
the  Union  party,  who  feared  that  the  return  of  their 

38  Federal  Union,  December  16,  1851. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


357 


Union  Democratic  associates  to  the  old  allegiance 
would  leave  Georgia  Whiggery  isolated,  without  party 
allies  either  in  the  North  or  in  the  state  itself.  It 
seemed  a  cruel  irony  of  fate  that,  the  agitation  of  the 
slavery  issue  having  alienated  the  Whigs  from  their 
northern  associates,  the  subsidence  of  that  very  agita¬ 
tion  should  now  alienate  them  from  their  state  asso¬ 
ciates.  Whig  editors,  therefore,  found  themselves 
tempted  to  assume  an  attitude  exactly  the  reverse  of 
that  which  they  had  maintained  for  two  years ;  that  is, 
they  actually  began  a  mild  agitation  of  the  slavery 
issue.  This  seemed  the  only  way  in  which  to  maintain 
that  state  of  alarm  among  Union  Democrats  which 
would  insure  their  continued  allegiance  to  the  conserva¬ 
tive  coalition.  Southern-rights  editors  countered  by 
reversing  their  attitude  in  turn.  When  the  Milledge- 
wille  Recorder,  for  instance,  displayed  alarm  over  the 
discussions  of  slavery  that  arose  in  Congress  in  Decem¬ 
ber,  1851,  the  Federal  Union  scoffed  at  its  fears,  held 
that  all  was  well,  and  declared  that  the  Whigs  were 
simply  agitating  in  order  to  remain  in  power.37  Once 
again,  at  the  call  of  party  expediency,  the  state  parties 
had  reversed  their  fundamental  attitudes  towards  the 
whole  sectional  controversy. 

Meanwhile,  1852  was  to  be  a  presidential  year,  and 
bere  again  fate  favored  the  apparently  defeated  Demo¬ 
crats.  The  state  parties  must  now  adjust  themselves 
to  the  national  situation — an  adjustment  that  had  only 
been  put  off  temporarily  in  1851,  and  which,  for  rea¬ 
sons  that  have  already  been  noted,  was  bound  to  re¬ 
dound  to  the  benefit  of  the  Democracy.  There  was 
only  one  national  party  which  Georgians  of  any  party 
could  afford  to  support,  and  that  was  the  Democratic. 

31  Federal  Union,  December  16,  23,  1851. 


358 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Northern  Whiggery  was  “unsound”  on  the  all-im¬ 
portant  slavery  issue,  and  no  national  Union  party  had 
ever  been  organized.  Both  the  Georgia  Whigs  and 
Union  Democrats  must  choose  between  supporting  the 
national  Democracy  and  throwing  their  votes  away 
upon  some  improvised  and  hopeless  third-party  ticket. 
The  Union  Democrats  were  not  likely  to  abandon 
the  national  Democracy,  in  view  of  their  persistent 
claim  to  recognition  as  the  legitimate  state  branch  of 
the  party.  It  remained  to  be  seen  whether  the  Whigs 
would  go  with  them  into  the  Democracy,  or  whether 
they  would  prefer  even  isolation  to  such  political 
apostasy. 

The  Whigs  and  Union  Democrats  had  cooperated 
in  the  state  legislature  of  1851-52,  the  latter  even  sit¬ 
ting  on  the  same  side  of  the  chambers  with  their  asso¬ 
ciates.38  They  had  combined  with  the  Whigs  to  defeat 
the  candidacy  of  Berrien  for  reelection  to  the  national 
Senate39  and  to  grant  that  honor  to  Toombs.40  As 
the  winter  waned,  however,  and  the  question  of  na¬ 
tional  presidential  nominations  loomed  on  the  political 
horizon,  it  became  increasingly  difficult  to  maintain 
this  cooperation. 

The  Union  Democrats  insisted  upon  sending  dele¬ 
gates  to  the  coming  Democratic  convention  at  Balti¬ 
more,  for  to  abstain  from  representation  therein  would 
have  simply  meant  the  surrender  of  their  claims  to 
national  recognition.  There  was  talk  of  persuading 
the  Whigs  to  join  with  them  in  sending  a  general 
Union  party  delegation,  and  some  Whigs  encouraged 

38  Federal  Union,  January  27,  1852. 

39  Berrien,  after  denying  his  candidacy,  later  indicated  that  he  would 
accept  re-election.  His  age,  and  his  alienation  from  his  party  in  1850 
and  1851,  combined  at  this  point  to  terminate  his  career. 

10  See  Phillips,  Robert  Toombs,  p.  105. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


359 


the  suggestion.  The  Macon  Journal,  for  instance, 
admitted  that  there  was  not  much  further  need  for  a 
Union  party  in  the  state  and  advocated  that  its  mem¬ 
bers  affiliate  with  the  Democracy  and  be  represented 
at  Baltimore.41  This  may  be  viewed  as  one  of  the  first 
steps  in  the  process  that  was  to  carry  most  of  the  Whigs 
over  into  the  other  party  before  the  end  of  the  decade. 

It  was  a  premature  step,  however,  so  far  as  most 
of  the  Whigs  were  concerned  in  1852.  The  Union 
party  met  in  state  convention  on  April  22  and  was 
promptly  involved  in  a  controversy  between  the  Union 
Democrats,  who  wished  to  send  a  delegation  to  Balti¬ 
more,  and  the  Whigs,  who  opposed  such  action.  The 
debate  ended  in  deadlock,  whereupon  the  Union  Demo¬ 
crats — nicknamed  the  “Tugalo  Democrats”  from  the 
Tugalo  river  region  in  Upper  Georgia — independently 
chose  their  own  delegation  to  Baltimore.  A  small 
group  of  conservative  Whigs  then  met  at  Milledgeville 
on  June  7  and  elected  a  delegation  to  the  Whig  national 
convention. 

The  southern-rights  Democrats  had,  meanwhile, 
met  in  convention  on  March  31  and  had  duly  chosen  a 
delegation  to  the  Democratic  convention.  When  that 
body  assembled,  both  this  delegation  and  that  selected 
by  the  Tugalo  faction  arrived  to  claim  recognition  as 
the  legitimate  representatives  of  Georgia.  Neither 
group  could  be  ignored,  since  the  Tugalo  element  had 
strong  support  among  the  northern  conservatives,  who 
felt  that  it  had  been  loyal  to  the  national  party  when 
the  southern-rights  group  had  bolted  in  1850  ;42  while 

41  Macon  Journal,  January  14,  1852;  cf.  Federal  Union  January  20, 
1852. 

42  Cobb’s  influence  at  Washington  had  helped  to  retain  the  support  of 
the  Washington  Union  for  the  Union  Democrats;  and  Arnold  had  used 


360 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


the  latter  could  not  be  snubbed  in  view  of  the  simple 
fact  that  it  now  included  nearly  three  fourths  of  the 
Democratic  voters  in  the  state.43  The  convention 
solved  this  seeming  dilemma  by  the  simple  expedient  of 
admitting  both  delegations.  Spokesmen  for  both  the 
state  factions  approved  this  action,  and  cheers  greeted 
the  apparent  reconciliation  within  the  Georgia  De¬ 
mocracy.44  The  convention  nominated  Franklin 
Pierce  as  a  candidate  who  was  sufficiently  safe  and 
sane  to  appeal  to  both  sections. 

Throughout  the  summer,  however,  both  the  Whigs 
and  Union  Democrats  in  Georgia  showed  signs  of  a 
lingering  attachment  to  the  fast  disintegrating  Union 
party  organization.  When  the  state’s  southern-rights 
delegates  at  Baltimore,  for  instance,  invited  the  Tuga- 
loes  to  join  with  them  in  calling  a  general  Pierce  rati¬ 
fication  meeting  in  Georgia,  the  latter  declined,  evi¬ 
dently  in  the  hope  that  they  could  still  persuade  the 
Whigs  to  go  with  them  in  an  independent  support  of 
the  same  candidate. 

Meanwhile,  the  Whig  national  convention  nomi¬ 
nated  General  Scott,  who  was  considered  entirely 
“unsafe”  by  many  of  the  Georgia  members  of  the 
party.  The  fact  that  this  convention,  like  the  Demo- 


his  influence  with  Forney  to  secure  the  support  of  so  important  a  party 
paper  as  the  Philadelphia  Pennsylvanian.  See  Arnold  to  Forney,  Sep¬ 
tember  1,  1851,  Arnold  MSS. 

43  In  the  election  of  1850  the  southern-rights  Democrats  polled  less 
than  half  of  the  normal  Democratic  vote.  The  moderation  of  the 
Southern-rights  leaders  in  the  campaign  of  1851,  however,  attracted  back 
many  Democrats  who  would  not  vote  for  them  when  they  had  been 
stamped  with  the  stigma  of  secessionism.  As  a  result  their  party  polled 
about  three-fifths  of  the  normal  Democratic  vote  in  1851.  They  claimed 
by  the  spring  of  that  year  to  have  the  support  of  three-fourths  of  the 
original  party,  i.e.,  that  the  Southern-rights  party  numbered  some  thirty- 
nine  thousand  voters,  and  the  Tugalo  element  only  thirteen  thousand. 
See  Federal  Union,  May  22,  1852. 

44  Federal  Union,  June  15,  1852. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


361 


cratic,  formally  approved  the  Clay  compromise  did  not 
reassure  such  Whigs.  While  the  more  conservative 
Whigs,  led  by  Senator  Dawson  and  supported  by  such 
papers  as  the  Chronicle , 45  accepted  Scott’s  candidacy, 
the  more  radical  members,  led  by  Toombs  and  Steph¬ 
ens,  supported  a  separate  ticket  headed  by  Daniel 
Webster. 

This  left  the  Tugaloes  in  an  isolated  position,  since 
they  had  refused  to  go  with  the  rest  of  the  Democrats 
for  Pierce;  and  now  the  Whigs  were  refusing  to  go 
for  Pierce  with  them.  In  a  last  effort  to  hold  the 
Union  party  together,  they  called  a  meeting  of  the 
same  at  Milledgeville  on  July  15.  The  Tugaloes  com¬ 
prised  a  majority  of  its  membership,  and,  when  they 
attempted  to  approve  the  nomination  of  the  Pierce 
ticket,  the  Whig  delegates  bolted.  The  Tugalo  rump 
was  then  forced  to  nominate  an  independent  ticket  of 
Pierce  electors.  The  Union  party  had  finally  suc¬ 
cumbed  to  the  pressure  of  national  issues,  and  the 
executive  committee  shortly  thereafter  declared  its 
official  dissolution.46 

When  the  election  was  held  in  the  fall,  the  south¬ 
ern-rights  (now  claiming  to  be  the  “regular”)  Demo¬ 
cratic  Pierce  electors  received  33,843  votes  and  were 
elected,  while  the  Tugalo  Pierce  electors  polled  only 
5733  votes.47  The  Scott  ticket,  which  may  be  viewed  as 
representing  what  was  left  of  the  “regular”  Whig  or¬ 
ganization,  received  15,789  and  the  Webster  ticket 
5289  votes.  A  ticket  of  the  die-hard  secessionists,  who 

45  Chronicle,  July  20,  1852. 

46  Federal  Union,  July  13,  20,  1852;  Phillips,  Robert  Toombs,  pp.  109, 
110. 

47  This  probably  does  not  represent  the  normal  strength  of  the  Tuga¬ 
loes,  as  there  was  little  incentive  for  this  group  to  vote  when  there  was 
no  possibility  of  election  of  their  ticket. 


362 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


had  nominated  Troup  and  Quitman,  polled  only  119 
votes.  This  last  was  the  first  vote  taken  in  the  state 
which  could  be  viewed  as  indicating  specifically  the 
number  of  secessionists,  yet  it  was  not  a  reliable  test 
for  the  same  in  view  of  the  fact  that  some  secessionists 
may  have  not  thought  it  worth  voting  under  the 
circumstances. 

The  subsequent  history  of  the  state  parties  need  not 
be  pursued  here.  When  the  state  election  of  1853  was 
held,  the  Union  Democrats  cooperated  with  the  south¬ 
ern-rights  group  in  electing  Herschel  V.  Johnson  as 
governor,48  and  the  reunited  factions  polled  the  normal 
party  vote.  The  Whigs,  still  retaining  the  now  mean¬ 
ingless  appellation  of  the  “Union  party,”  also  polled  a 
normal  vote  and  were  consequently  defeated  by  a  nar¬ 
row  margin.49  The  crisis  of  1850  was  past ;  the  events 
which  led  to  the  greater  crisis  of  1860  were  yet  to  be. 

Within  Georgia  the  lull  between  the  two  storms 
was  mistaken  by  many  for  the  reality  of  permanent 
peace  and  calm.  The  “Empire  State  of  the  South” 
could  now  devote  itself  undisturbed,  they  felt,  to  the 
cultivation  of  progress  and  prosperity.  Governor 
Cobb’s  final  executive  message,  written  just  before  he 
left  office  in  1853,  was  of  the  most  optimistic  character 
— a  veritable  benediction  to  a  happy  people.  “The  gen¬ 
eral  character  of  our  Federal  relations,”  he  declared, 
“presents  a  flattering  prospect.  Since  the  happy  termi¬ 
nation  of  those  annoying  sectional  strifes,  which  for  a 
time  threatened  our  peace  and  quiet,  the  country  has 
returned  to  a  state  of  calm  and  repose,  and  all  indica- 

48  There  were,  of  course,  some  signs  of  lingering  feeling  between  the 
two  elements,  especially  of  the  extremists’  dislike  for  Howell  Cobb.  See, 
e.g.,  W.  H.  Hull  to  Cobb,  August  16,  1853,  Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb 
Correspondence,  pp.  334,  335. 

"  Phillips,  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  pp.  168,  169. 


THE  AFTERMATH,  1851-1852 


363 


tions  of  the  present  point  to  a  happy,  peaceful  and 
prosperous  future.”50  Perhaps,  after  all,  it  was  well 
for  the  Georgia  people  that  they  could  not  know  what 
this  future  really  was  to  be. 

50  Message  of  Governor  Howell  Cobb  to  the  Legislature,  November  8, 
1853,  (pamphlet  in  the  De  Renne  Library  collection.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


I — Guides 

Brooks,  R.  P.,  A  Preliminary  Bibliography  to  Georgia  His¬ 
tory,  Athens,  Ga.,  1910. 

Flisch,  Julia,  “Records  of  Richmond  County”  (Augusta), 
American  Historical  Association,  Annual  Report,  1906,  II. 
159,  ff. 

Harden,  William,  “Georgia  Newspaper  Files  in  the  Library 
of  the  Georgia  Historical  Society,”  Gulf  States  Historical 
Magazine,  I.  348,  ff. 

Hull,  A.  E.,  “Georgia  Newspaper  Files  in  the  Library  of  the 
University  of  Georgia,”  Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine , 
I.  205,  ff. 

Jack,  T.  H.,  “Historiography  in  Georgia,”  Georgia  Historical 
Association,  Annual  Proceedings,  I.  21-31. 

Jack,  T.  H.,  “Files  in  the  Emory  College  Library,  Oxford, 
Georgia,”  Gulf  States  Historical  Magazine,  II.  194,  ff. 

Knight,  L.  L.  and  Cobb,  M.,  “The  Condition  of  Georgia’s 
Archives,”  Georgia  Historical  Association,  Annual  Proceed¬ 
ings,  I.  32-35  (1917). 

Kennedy,  J.  C.  G.,  “Catalogue  of  the  Newspapers  and  Period¬ 
icals  Published  in  the  United  States,  1850.”  (Included  as 
appendix  to  John  Livingston’s  Law  Register  for  1852,  New 
York,  1852.  Gives  lists  of  papers  in  each  state,  with  party 
affiliations  and  circulation  figures.) 

Mackall,  L.  L.,  “The  W.  J.  De  Renne  Georgia  Library,” 
Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  II.  63,  ff.  (June,  1908.) 

Owen,  T.  M.,  “Georgia  Newspaper  Files  in  the  Carnegie  Li¬ 
brary,  Atlanta,”  Gidf  States  Historical  Magazine,  I.  423,  ff. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “Public  Archives  of  Georgia,”  American  His¬ 
torical  Association,  Annual  Report,  1903,  I.  439,  ff. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “Georgia  Local  Archives,”  American  Histor¬ 
ical  Association,  Annual  Report,  1904. 

“State  Histories,  Check  List  of,  in  the  New  York  Public  Li¬ 
brary,”  New  York  Public  Library  Bulletin,  No.  5  (New 
York,  1901). 


366 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Weglein,  O.,  Materials  for  Georgia  History  in  the  Library  of 

IV.  J.  De  Renne,  Savannah,  1911. 

II — Unpublished  Sources 

Unless  otherwise  noted  the  manuscripts  listed  below  are  in 
the  Library  of  Congress. 

Arnold  MSS.  A  collection  of  the  letter-books  of  Dr.  Rich¬ 
ard  Arnold  of  Savannah,  containing  correspondence  from  c. 
1840  to  1870,  in  possession  of  his  granddaughter,  Miss  Mar¬ 
garet  Cosens,  of  Savannah.  (Letters  from  the  Savannah 
Democratic  leader,  dealing  with  personal,  professional,  and 
political  matters.  Those  of  a  political  nature  are  valuable  here, 
as  they  contain  periodical  analyses  of  political  conditions  in  the 
state  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  union  Democrats.  These  were 
sent  by  Arnold  to  his  friend  Forney,  the  Pennsylvania  Demo¬ 
crat.  The  letters  give  especially  vivid  details  of  party  strug¬ 
gles  in  Savannah.  They  contain  material  for  the  history  of 
Georgia  in  the  Civil  War  and  Reconstruction  periods,  but  this 
has  not  as  yet  been  examined.) 

Berrien  MSS.  A  few  letters  of  Senator  John  McPherson 
Berrien.  (Important  for  Berrien’s  political  position  in  1848- 
1850.) 

Calhoun  Papers.  Unpublished  letters  of  J.  C.  Calhoun,  in 
possession  of  the  American  Historical  Association,  preparatory 
to  publication.  (Contain  c.  15  letters  from  Georgia  extremists 
to  Calhoun,  1847-1850.  Important  for  the  connection  between 
Calhoun  and  the  secession  movement  in  Georgia.) 

Crittendon  MSS.  A  large  collection  of  28  volumes  of  great 
value  for  the  general  history  of  the  Southern  Whigs.  (Useful 
here  in  connection  with  Toombs  and  Stephens,  though  most  of 
this  material  has  been  printed  in  the  Toombs,  Stephens,  and 
Cobb  Correspondence.  A  calendar  by  C.  N.  Feamster  (1913) 
makes  the  manuscripts  readily  accessible.) 

Hammond  MSS.  (A  large  collection  of  the  letters  of  the 
South  Carolina  Governor,  James  H.  Hammond,  dealing  with 
personal  and  political  matters,  slavery,  etc.) 

Stephens  MSS.  (About  twenty  papers  of  Alex.  H.  Steph¬ 
ens,  including  a  few  Toombs  letters.) 

Seabrook  MSS.  (Political  letters  to  and  from  Governor  W. 
B.  Seabrook  of  South  Carolina,  1849-1850.  Valuable  for  the 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


367 


relationship  between  South  Carolina  and  the  secession  move¬ 
ment  in  Georgia  and  Mississippi.  Contains  several  letters  from 
Governor  G.  W.  Towns  of  Georgia  to  Seabrook,  in  1850,  which 
are  of  great  importance.) 

Georgia  Executive  Department,  Letter  Books  of :  in  the 
Department  of  Archives,  Atlanta.  (Relate  largely  to  routine 
matters,  but  are  occasionally  suggestive.) 

Georgia  Executive  Department,  Minutes  of :  in  Department 
<of  Archives,  Atlanta.  (Contains  executive  proclamations.) 

Ill— Contemporary  Writings 

Brooks,  R.  P.  (Ed.),  “The  Howell  Cobb  Papers,”  Georgia 
Historical  Quarterly,  V.  Numbers  1,  2  and  3.  (March,  June, 
September,  1921.) 

Jameson,  F.  P.  (Ed.),  “The  Correspondence  of  John  C.  Cal¬ 
houn,”  American  Historical  Association,  Annual  Report, 
1899,  II. 

Johnston,  R.  M.  and  Browne,  W.  H.,  Life  of  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  Philadelphia,  1878.  (Largely  a  collection  of  ex¬ 
cerpts  from  Stephens’  letters.) 

Phillips,  U.  B.  (Ed.),  “Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Cor¬ 
respondence,”  American  Historical  Association,  Annual  Re¬ 
port,  1911,  II. 

Quaife,  M.  M.  lEd.),  The  Diary  of  James  K.  Polk,  Chicago, 

1910. 

Rowland,  Dunbar  (Ed.),  Jefferson  Davis,  Constitutionalist: 
His  Letters,  Papers  and  Speeches,  Jackson,  1923. 

IV — Memoirs  and  Reminiscences 

Andrews,  Garnett,  Reminiscences  of  an  old  Georgia  Lawyer, 
Atlanta,  1870. 

Avary,  M.  L.,  Recollections  of  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  New 
York,  1910.  (Contains  Stephens’  letter  reviewing  his  own 
career.) 

Benton,  T.  H.,  Thirty  Years  View,  New  York,  1854,  1856. 
Burke,  Emily,  Reminiscences  of  Georgia,  Oberlin,  Ohio,  1850. 
(Interesting  observations  on  social  and  economic  life,  from 
a  northern  point  of  view.) 

T)avis,  Mrs.  V.  H.,  Jefferson  Davis,  A  Memoir,  New  York, 
1890.  (Interesting  observations  on  the  slavery  issue  in 
1850.) 


368 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Felton,  Mrs.  W.  H.  (R.  L.),  Country  Life  in  Georgia  in  the 
Days  of  My  Youth,  Atlanta,  1919. 

Giddings,  Joshua  R.,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  New  York, 
1864.  (Largely  a  memoir  useful  for  the  abolitionist  point  of 
view  in  1850.) 

Kemble,  Frances  A.,  Journal  of  a  Residence  on  a  Georgia 
Plantation  in  1838-1839 ,  New  York,  1863. 

Lumpkin,  Joseph  H.,  “Memoirs,”  United  States  Law  Maga¬ 
zine,  July  and  August,  1851  (Chiefly  legal). 

Mallard,  R.  Q.,  Plantation  Life  Before  Emancipation,  Rich¬ 
mond  (Va.),  1897.  (Accounts  of  slavery  in  Georgia.) 

Pike,  J.  S.,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War,  New  York,  1879. 
(Recollections  and  opinions  of  a  Taylor  Whig.) 

Stephens,  A.  H.,  A  Constitutional  View  of  the  Late  War  be- 
tween  the  States,  Philadelphia,  1868-70. 

Scot,  W.  J.,  Seventy-One  Years  in  Georgia:  An  Autobiogra¬ 
phy,  Atlanta,  1897. 

Wylie,  L.  B.,  Memoirs  of  Richard  H.  Clark,  Atlanta,  1898. 
(Relates  chiefly  to  Savannah.) 

V — Biography 

Ames,  H.  V.,  “Calhoun  and  the  Secession  Movement  of  1850,” 
University  of  Pennsylvania,  Public  Lectures,  1917-1918. 
(An  excellent  brief  account  of  Calhoun’s  leadership.) 

Boykin,  Samuel,  A  Memorial  Volume  of  Hoiuell  Cobb,  Phila¬ 
delphia,  1870.  (Brief  biography,  eulogistic  and  unsatisfac¬ 
tory.) 

Candler,  A.  D.  and  Evans,  C.  A.,  Cyclopedia  of  Georgia,  At¬ 
lanta,  1907.  (Contains  laudatory  biographical  sketches.) 

Chappell,  A.  H.,  Miscellanies  of  Georgia,  Atlanta  (Ga.), 
1874.  (Miscellaneous  collection  of  biographical  and  his¬ 
torical  sketches.) 

Cleveland,  H.,  Alexander  H.  Stephens,  Philadelphia,  1866. 

Fielder,  Herbert,  Life  and  Times  and  Speeches  of  Joseph  E. 
Brown,  Springfield  (Mass.),  1883.  (Contains  interesting 
comments  on  Georgia  politicians.) 

Gilmer,  G.  R.,  Sketches  of  Some  of  the  First  Settlers  of  Upper 
Georgia,  New  York,  1855. 

Harden,  E.  J.,  The  Life  of  George  M.  Troup,  Savannah,  1859. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


369 


Holsey,  Hopkins,  “George  W.  Towns,”  in  the  Milledgeville 
Federal  Union,  July  13,  1847. 

Johnston,  R.  M.  and  Browne,  W.  H.,  Life  of  Alexander  H. 
Stephens,  Philadelphia,  1878. 

Jones,  C.  C.,  John  McPherson  Berrien,  Atlanta,  1891.  (Ad¬ 
dress  before  the  Georgia  Bar  Association,  1891 — eulogistic.) 

Jones,  C.  C.,  Life  and  Services  of  Ex-Governor  C.  J .  Jenkins, 
Atlanta,  1884.  (Memorial  Address  to  the  Georgia  Legis¬ 
lature,  1883 — laudatory.) 

Knight,  L.  L.,  A  Standard  History  of  Georgia  and  Georgians, 
New  York,  1917.  (Of  the  6  volumes,  volumes  IV-VI.  in¬ 
clusive,  are  biographical.) 

Knight,  L.  L.,  Reminisences  of  Famous  Georgians,  Atlanta, 
1907-08. 

Memoirs  of  Georgia,  the  Southern  Historical  Association,  At¬ 
lanta,  1895.  (Contains  convenient  biographical  sketches.) 

Merritt,  Elizabeth,  James  Henry  Hammond,  1807-1864 , 
Baltimore,  Johns  Hopkins  University  Press,  1923. 

Miller,  S.  F.,  Bench  and  Bar  of  Georgia,  Philadelphia,  1858. 
(Contains  valuable  biographical  sketches,  by  a  contemporary 
politician,  of  both  Whig  and  Democratic  leaders.) 

Mitchell,  B.,  “Frederick  Law  Olmsted,”  Johns  Hopkins  Uni¬ 
versity  Sudies  in  Political  and  Social  Science,  Series  XLII, 
No.  2,  Baltimore,  1924. 

Northern,  W.  J.,  Men  of  Mark  in  Georgia,  Atlanta,  1907-12. 

Norton,  F.  H.,  Life  of  Alexander  Stephens,  Alden,  N.  Y., 
1883.  (An  early  biography,  superseded  by  Pendleton.) 

Pendleton,  L.  B.,  Alexander  Stephens,  Philadelphia,  1907. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  The  Life  of  Robert  Toombs,  New  York,  1913. 

Shurz,  Carl,  Henry  Clay,  Boston,  1887. 

Stovall,  P.  A.,  Robert  Toombs,  New  York,  1892.  (Super¬ 
seded  by  Phillips’  Toombs,  but  contains  some  interesting 
material.) 

Turner,  J.  A.,  “William  C.  Dawson,”  The  Plantation,  I.  No. 
1,  pp.  71-100  (1860). 

Turner,  J.  A.,  “Herschel  V.  Johnson,”  ibid.,  pp.  62-70. 

Waddell,  J.  D.,  Linton  Stephens,  Atlanta,  1877. 

Wade,  John  D.,  Augustus  Baldwin  Longstreet,  New  York, 
1924.  (Useful  for  the  social  history  of  Georgia  in  the  ante¬ 
bellum  period.) 


370 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


VI — Newspapers 
GEORGIA 

Athens,  Clark  County 

Southern  Whig,  Weekly,  Whig.  Library  of  Congress — 
June-December,  1849.  (Typically  conservative  Whig 
Journal,  not  of  great  value.  Circulation — 700.  )* 

Southern  Banner,  Weekly,  Democratic.  Library  of  Uni¬ 
versity  of  Georgia,  1833-1846.  (Most  militant  journal  of 
the  Union  Democrats.  Hopkins  Holsey,  Editor.  Usually 
considered  the  organ  of  Howell  Cobb.  Circulation — 700.) 

Agusta,  Richmond  County 

Constitutionalist ,  Daily,  tri-weekly  and  weekly,  Democratic. 
Office  of  the  Augusta  Chronicle.  Complete  files  to  1860. 
These  damaged  by  fire,  1921.  Present  condition  con¬ 
fused.  (Militant  Democratic  journal.  Became  a  south¬ 
ern-rights  paper  in  1849.  Gardner,  J.  R.,  Editor.  Cir¬ 
culation,  weekly  edition — 3,000.) 

Chronicle  and  Sentinel,  Daily,  tri-weekly,  and  weekly,  Whig. 

(1)  Library  of  Congress,  March,  1849-December,  1854. 

(2)  Complete  files  in  the  Chronicle  office,  damaged  by  fire, 
1921.  Present  condition  confused.  (3)  Library  of  the 
Western  Reserve  Historical  Society,  Cleveland,  Ohio — 
1855,  1857,  1859.  (Conservative  Whig  organ,  expressing 
remarkably  independent  views  of  the  most  conservative 
Whig  group.  Especially  interesting  for  its  constitutional 
principles  and  views  on  slavery.  Strongly  anti-Carolina. 
Dr.  Daniel  Lee,  Editor.  Largest  circulation  in  the  state — 
among  political  papers.  Weekly  edition,  5,350.) 

Republic,  Tri-weekly  and  weekly,  Independent  Whig.  No 
files  located.  (A  vigorous  independent  Whig  paper;  fav¬ 
ored  Clay  in  1848  and  southern-rights  in  1850.  Founded 
1848,  perhaps  to  back  Clay.  Smythe,  J.,  Editor.  Circu¬ 
lation,  weekly  edition — 2,950.) 

Columbus,  Muscogee  County 

Enquirer,  Weekly,  Whig.  (1)  Office  of  the  Enquirer,  1828 
to  date.  (2)  In  possession  of  Mr.  J.  J.  Gilbert,  of  Colum- 

1  Facts  given  are  for  1850,  unless  otherwise  stated. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


371 


bus — 1874  to  date.  (3)  Office  of  the  Ordinary,  Harris 
County,  Georgia,  1856-1860.  (Conservative  Whig.  No 
circulation  figures.) 

Times,  Tri-weekly  and  weekly,  Democratic.  (1)  Library  of 
Congress — January,  1847-May,  1848 ;  January-June,  1849. 

(2)  In  possession  of  J.  J.  Gilbert,  Columbus,  1847  to  1860. 
(An  able  Democratic  journal,  became  favorable  to  south¬ 
ern-rights,  1849,  after  James  N.  Bethune  was  replaced  by 
John  Forsyth  as  editor.  No  circulation  figures.) 

Muscogee  Democrat,  Weekly,  Democratic.  No  files  found. 
(A  consistently  southern-rights  paper.  In  1850  became  the 
Sentinel,  and  advocated  “secession  per  se.”  Radical  state¬ 
ments  attracted  attention  in  the  North,  but  no  indication 
in  Georgia  press  that  it  was  so  important  as  the  Times. 
Circulation  probably  small.  No  figures.) 

Daily  Sun,  Daily,  Whig.  In  possession  of  J.  J.  Gilbert, 
Columbus — 1853-1874,  when  it  merged  with  the  Enquirer. 
(Of  value  for  years  just  prior  to  the  Civil  War.) 

Macon,  Bibb  County 

Georgia  Messenger,  Weekly,  Whig.  Emory  College  Li¬ 
brary  (Oxford,  Georgia),  1830-1847,  when  it  merged 
with  the  Journal  and  Messenger.  (Conservative  Whig.) 

Georgia  Journal  and  Messenger,  Weekly,  Whig.  (1)  Geor¬ 
gia  Historical  Society,  1847-1849.  (2)  Files  in  the  office 

of  the  Macon  Telegraph,  partly  destroyed  by  fire,  1910 — 
files  preserved  relate  largely  to  the  Reconstruction  period. 

(3)  Emory  College  Library— 1851-1857,  1858-1860.  (4) 

Western  Reserve  Historical  Society,  1856-1857,  1858.  (A 
typically  conservative  Whig  paper.  Circulation — 3,200.) 

Georgia  Telegraph,  Weekly,  Democratic.  (1)  Files  in  its 
own  office  largely  destroyed  by  fire,  1910.  (See  above.) 
(2)  Office  of  the  Court  of  Ordinary  of  Jones  County 
(Grey,  Georgia),  complete  from  May,  1852,  on.  (3) 
Western  Reserve  Historical  Society — 1856.  (An  interest¬ 
ing  and  militant  southern-rights  journal.  Was  the  first  in 
Georgia  to  assume  this  position,  after  Sam  J.  Ray  suc¬ 
ceeded  O.  H.  Prince  as  editor  in  1847.  See  Savannah 
Georgian,  April  15,  1847.) 


372 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Georgia  Citizen,  Weekly,  Whig;  No  files  found.  (A  mili¬ 
tant  pro-Union  paper,  expressing  the  most  violent  con¬ 
demnation  of  the  southern  movement  offered  in  the  state. 
Its  editor,  L.  F.  W.  Andrews,  was  seriously  accused  of 
being  an  abolitionist,  and  the  paper  temporarily  suppressed, 
July,  1850,  after  he  was  driven  from  Macon.  Circulation 
— 1,000;  in  1851  became  the  Macon  Union  Banner.  For 
reference  to  latter  see  Pendleton,  A.  H.  Stephens,  p.  109.) 

Southern  Tribune,  Weekly,  Democratic.  No  files  found. 
(Character  unknown.  For  reference  to,  see  Savannah 
Georgian,  July  9,  1850.) 

Milledgeville,  Baldwin  County 

Federal  Union,  Weekly,  Democratic.  (1)  Complete  files  in 
the  Union  Recorder  office,  Milledgeville.  (2)  Library  of 
Congress — January,  1847-November,  1849.  (3)  Office  of 

the  Court  of  Ordinary,  Jones  County  (Grey,  Georgia), 
May,  1852,  on.  (4)  The  De  Renne  Library.  (The  central 
organ  of  the  Georgia  Democracy;  an  able  and  vigorous 
journal.  Favored  the  southern  movement  after  1848.  R. 
W.  Flournoy,  Editor.  Circulation — 3,000.) 

Southern  Recorder,  Weekly,  Whig.  (1)  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress,  1851.  (2)  In  private  possession,  Milledgeville, 

1820-1868.  (The  central  organ  of  Georgia  Whiggery,  but 
not  so  important  a  paper  as  the  Augusta  Chronicle  or  the 
Savannah  Republican.  A  typical  conservative,  pro-Union 
journal.  Circulation — 2,705.) 

Savannah,  Chatham  County2 

Daily  Georgian,  Daily,  Democratic.  (1)  Library  of  Con¬ 
gress — 1847-August,  1849.  (2)  Georgia  Historical  So¬ 

ciety — 1818-1854.  (An  able  Democratic  daily.  Strongly 
anti-Calhoun  and  anti-Carolina.  Mildly  favored  south¬ 
ern-rights  movement,  but  tended  generally  towards  con¬ 
servatism.  Circulation — 650.  Daily  circulation  always 

much  smaller  than  weekly.  W.  H.  Bulloch  and  H.  R. 
Jackson,  editors.) 

Daily  Republican,  Daily,  Whig.  (1)  Library  of  Congress — 

2  There  is  a  collection  of  scrap-books  prepared  by  Dr.  Richard  Arnold, 
containing  valuable  excerpts,  chiefly  from  the  Savannah  newspapers  be¬ 
tween  1840  and  1870,  in  possession  of  Miss  Margaret  Cosens,  of 
Savannah. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


373 


Complete  files  for  this  period.  (2)  Georgia  Historical 
Society — 1844-1846.  (Ranked  with  the  Augusta  Chronicle 
as  an  able,  conservative  Whig  newspaper.  Less  independent 
and  original,  however,  than  the  Chronicle.  Strongly  anti- 
Calhoun  and  anti-Carolina.  Francis  Winters  and  J.  W. 
Locke,  Editors.  Circulation — 900.) 

Daily  News,  Daily,  independent.  Office  of  the  News, 
1850  to  date.  (An  independent  paper,  with  mild  leanings 
toward  southern-rights.  Established  1850  as  the  first 
cheap  newspaper,  and  had  a  phenomenally  rapid  growth. 
One  month  after  establishment  claimed  to  have  largest  cir¬ 
culation  in  Savannah.  See  Savannah  News,  January  30, 
1850.  Well  conducted  by  Col.  W.  T.  Thompson,  its 
first  editor,  and  the  only  ante-bellum  Savannah  paper  sur¬ 
viving  today.  Circulation — -1,020.  For  its  history  see  the 
Savannah  News,  its  History.  Pamphlet,  Georgia  His¬ 
torical  Society,  n.d.,  apparently  written  1880-1890.) 3 

Other  States 

Alabama 

Mobile  Daily  Advertiser,  Daily,  Whig.4 

Montgomery  Daily  Alabama  Journal,  Daily,  Whig. 

District  of  Columbia 

Daily  National  Intelligencer,  Daily,  Whig. 

Daily  Union,  Daily,  Democratic. 

Daily  Republic,  Daily,  Whig. 

Niles’  Weekly  Register,  Weekly,  Whig. 

Southern  Press,  Weekly,  “Southern-rights.” 

Florida 

Pensacola  Gazette,  Daily,  Whig. 

3  For  a  nearly  complete  list  of  all  the  remaining  papers  in  the  state, 
with  their  political  affiliations  and  circulations,  see  Kennedy,  J.  C.  J., 
Catalogue  of  the  Newspapers  and  Periodicals  Published  in  the  United 
States  (See  Guides.)  The  following  papers  are  not  listed  therein: 

Marietta  Helicon,  Weekly,  Whig. 

Graffin  Whig,  Weekly,  Whig. 

Griffin  Georgia  Jeffersonian,  Weekly,  Democratic. 

Eufaula  Democrat,  Weekly,  Democratic. 

Dahlonega  Watchman,  Weekly,  Democratic. 

Dalton  Eagle,  Weekly,  Whig. 

4  Type  of  edition  used  is  here  given,  e.g.,  weekly,  daily,  etc. 


374 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Louisiana 

New  Orleans  Picayune,  Daily,  Whig. 

Maryland 

Baltimore  Sun,  Daily,  Democratic. 

Massachusetts 

Boston  Bee,  Daily,  Democratic. 

Boston  Courier,  Daily,  Whig. 

Boston  Liberator,  Weekly,  Abolitionist. 

Mississippi 

Aberdeen  Independent,  Weekly,  Whig. 

Jackson  Mississippian,  Weekly,  Democratic. 

Jackson  Southron,  Weeky,  Whig.  (Became  Flag  of  the ' 
Union  in  1850.) 

Natchez  Courier,  Weekly,  Whig. 

New  York 

New  York  Herald,  Daily,  Democratic. 

New  York  Tribune,  Daily,  Whig  (antislavery). 

Ohio 

Akron  Summit  Beacon,  Weekly,  Whig. 

Cincinnati,  Enquirer,  Daily,  Democratic. 

Cleveland  Plain  Dealer,  Daily,  Democratic. 

Columbus  Ohio  State  Journal,  Daily,  Whig. 

Pennsylvania 

Philadelphia  Evening  Bulletin,  Daily,  Independent. 
Philadelphia  Pennsylvanian,  Daily,  Democratic. 

Philadelphia  North  American,  Daily,  Whig. 

Philadelphia  Public  Ledger,  Daily,  Independent. 

South  Carolina 

Charleston  Daily  Courier,  Daily,  “Southern-rights.”  ■ 
Charleston  Mercury,  Daily,  “Southern-rights.” 

Columbia  South  Carolinian,  Tri-weekly,  “Southern-rights.”' 

Virginia 

Richmond  Daily  Whig,  Daily,  Whig. 

Richmond  Enquirer,  Daily,  Democratic. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


375 


VII —  Periodicals 

American  Whig  Review,  New  York,  1845-1852. 

DeBow’s  Commercial  Reviezv,  New  Orleans,  1846-1864. 

Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine  and  Commercial  Review,  New 
York,  1839-1870. 

Harpers  New  Monthly  Magazine,  New  York,  1850,  on.  (Use¬ 
ful  for  monthly  summaries  of  current  news.) 

The  Plantation,  Elberton,  Georgia,  1860.  (A  literary  and 
political  periodical.  Its  few  numbers  contain  some  interest¬ 
ing  descriptions  of  Georgia  politics  and  politicians.) 

Southern  Cultivator,  Augusta,  Georgia,  1848,  on.  (Important 
for  agricultural  conditions  in  Georgia.  Had  the  largest  cir¬ 
culation  of  any  periodical  in  the  state.) 

■  United  States  Magazine  and  Democratic  Review,  Washington, 
D.  C.,  1838-1859. 

VIII —  Pamphlets 

(Unless  otherwise  noted  these  pamphlets  are  in  the  De  Renne 

Library,  or  the  Georgia  Historical  Society  Library,  in  Savan¬ 
nah.) 

Address  of  the  Executive  Committee  to  the  Constitutional 
Union  Party  of  Georgia,  Milledgeville,  1852.  (Sent  out  in 
July,  1852,  chiefly  by  Whig  members,  advising  a  dissolution 
of  the  Union  party.) 

Address  of  a  Portion  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Con¬ 
stitutional  Union  Party ,  to  the  Union  Democrats  and  Union 
Whigs,  Friends  of  Pierce  and  King.  (Sent  out  in  July,  1852, 
chiefly  by  Democratic  members,  advising  the  preservaion  of 
the  Union  party,  and  its  support  of  Pierce  and  King.) 

Arnold,  Richard  D.,  Remarks  on  the  Report  of  the  Commit¬ 
tee  on  the  State  of  the  Republic  (Georgia  Senate)  in  Relation 
to  the  Honorable  John  McPherson  Berrien,  Savannah,  1843. 
(Speech  in  the  Georgia  Senate,  December  19,  1842,  con¬ 
cerning  Berrien’s  attitude  towards  the  tariff  and  senatorial 
responsibility.) 

Campbell,  L.  D.,  Kansas  and  Nebraska,  Washington,  1855. 
(Reprint  in. pamphlet  form  of  speech  made  in  House  of 
Representatives,  December  14,  1854.  Contains  Campbell’s 
analysis  of  A.  H.  Stephen’s  economic  comparison  of  Georgia 
and  Ohio.) 


376 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Chappell,  A.  H.  (Editor),  Pamphlets  of  Georgia  History. 
Columbus,  Georgia,  1873,  and  Atlanta,  1896.  (Of  miscel¬ 
laneous  character  and  indirect  value.  Pennsylvania  Histor¬ 
ical  Society.) 

Clark,  John,  Cotisiderations  on  the  Principles  of  William 
Crawford,  Augusta,  Georgia,  1819.  (Clark’s  own  account 
of  the  personalities  which  precipitated  the  differentiation  of 
the  Clark  and  Troup  parties.) 

Cobb,  Howell,  Message  to  the  Georgia  Legislature,  November 
8,  1853,  Milledgeville,  1853.  (Urging  political  harmony  in 
the  state  and  declaring  the  crisis  of  1850  safely  past.) 

Cobb,  Howell,  To  Our  Constituents,  Washington,  D.  C.,  1849. 
(The  “Minority  Address,”  of  1849,  signed  by  Cobb,  John  H. 
Lumpkin,  B.  Boyd,  and  B.  L.  Clark.) 

Colquitt,  W.  T.,  Circular  to  the  People  of  Georgia  and  espe¬ 
cially  to  the  States  Rights  Party,  Milledgeville,  1840.  (Ap¬ 
peal  to  the  party  to  abandon  the  national  Whigs  and  unite 
with  the  Democrats.) 

DeBow,  J.  D.  B.,  The  Interest  in  Slavery  of  the  Southern  Non- 
Slaveholder,  1860  Association,  Tract  No.  5,  Charleston,  S.  C., 
1860.  LTniversity  of  Pennsylvania  Library.  (Written  to 
prove  the  antithesis  of  Helper’s  argument.  Contains  inter¬ 
esting  conclusions  based  upon  the  census  of  1850.) 

Eubank,  Thomas,  Inorganic  Forces,  Ordained  to  Supersede 
Human  Slavery,  New  York,  1860.  Included  in  Democratic 
Opinions  of  Slavery,  1776-1863.  (A  volume  of  pamphlets, 
New  York  Public  Library.  That  by  Eubank  gives  an  eco¬ 
nomic  interpretation  of  the  history  of  slavery,  predicting 
peaceful  emancipation  for  economic  reasons.) 

Fisher,  Sidney  G.,  The  Laws  of  Race  as  Connected  with 
Slavery,  Philadelphia,  1860,  University  of  Pennsylvania 
Library.  (Interesting  as  an  early  effort  to  prove  the  slavery 
question  incidental  to  the  race  problem.) 

Fisher,  Elwood,  The  North  and  the  South,  Address  to  the 
Young  Men’s  Mercantile  Association  of  Cincinnati;  Charles¬ 
ton,  South  Carolina,  1849.  (An  economic  comparison  of 
the  two  sections,  denying  northern  superiority.  Popular  in 
the  South  in  1850.) 

Free  Negroism,  (n.d.)  Included  in  Democratic  Opinions  on 
Slavery,  New  York  Public  Library.  (Apparently  written 


BIBLIOGRAPHY  377 

by  a  southerner,  1860-1863.  Interesting  opinions  on  slavery 
and  emancipation.) 

Green,  G.  E.,  Translator’s  Preface  to  A.  G.  de  Cassagnac’s 
History  of  the  Working  and  Burgher  Classes,  Philadelphia, 
1872.  (An  unusual  essay  claiming  that  the  interests  of 
southern  capital  and  northern  labor  were  identical,  that 
northern  capital  forced  the  Civil  War  to  divide  these  two, 
and  that  slavery  greatly  improved  the  social  status  of  the 
poor,  non-slaveholding  whites.) 

Incidents  of  a  Journey  from  Abbeville ,  South  Carolina,  to 
Ocola,  Florida,  by  an  Observer  of  Small  Things,  Edgefield, 
South  Carolina,  1852.  New  York  Public  Library.  (Inter¬ 
esting  observations  upon  political  conditions  in  Augusta  and 
Savannah.) 

Inquiry  into  the  Condition  and  Prospects  of  the  African  Race 
in  the  United  States,  by  an  American,  Philadelphia,  1839, 
University  of  Pennsylvania  Library.  (Candid,  fair,  and  dis¬ 
cerning.  Deals  with  the  race  problems  in  slavery.) 

Jones,  A.  Seaborn,  Speed  the  Plough:  An  Essay  on  the  Tariff, 
by  a  Georgia  Planter,  Athens,  Georgia,  1845.  (Expresses 
opposition  of  the  conservative  Georgia  planter  to  the  pro¬ 
tective  tariff  and  the  introduction  of  manufacturing.) 

King,  John  P.,  Letter  to  a  Whig  Planter,  September  15,  1844. 
(Able  argument  by  Georgia  Democrat  against  the  tariff.) 

Longstreet,  A.  B.,  Voice  from  the  South,  or  Letters  from 
Georgia  to  Massachusetts  and  to  the  Southern  States,  with 
an  appendix  containing  an  article  from  the  Charleston  Mer¬ 
cury  on  the  Wilmot  Proviso,  together  with  the  fourth  article 
of  the  Constitution,  the  Law  of  Congress,  the  Nullification 
Law  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Resolutions  of  Ten  of  the  Free 
States,  the  Resolutions  of  Virginia,  Georgia  and  Alabama, 
and  Mr.  Calhoun’s  resolutions  in  the  Senate  of  the  United 
States,  with  an  introduction  by  the  editor  of  the  Baltimore 
Western  Continent,  Baltimore,  1847.  (Copy  in  Yale  Univer¬ 
sity  Library,  in  the  Pennsylvania  Historical  Society,  in  pos¬ 
session  of  Dr.  U.  B.  Phillips.  An  interesting  and  valuable 
resume  of  the  history  of  Georgia  and  Massachusetts  with 
relationship  to  slavery,  from  the  Georgia  point  of  view.  Some 
comment  on  current  conditions  in  Georgia.  An  appeal  to  the 
south  to  join  the  southern  movement.  The  pamphlet  was 


378 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


probably  the  first  important  bit  of  propaganda  literature  fav¬ 
oring  that  movement  in  the  state.  Notes  on  authorship,  in¬ 
fluence,  etc.  are  in  Wade,  J.  D.,  Longstreet,  pp.  286,  287 ; 
Phillips,  U.  B.,  “Literary  Movement  for  Secession,”  W .  A. 
Dunning  Studies  in  Southern  History,  p.  35.) 

McAllister,  M.  H.,  Address  of,  of  Georgia,  to  the  Georgia 
Democratic-Republican  Convention,  July  4,  1840.  Milledge- 
ville,  1840.  (Made  upon  joining  the  party  in  1840.  Largely 
an  appeal  by  the  former  Whig  leader  to  the  rest  of  the  State- 
rights  men  to  abandon  the  national  Whig  party.) 

Perry  B.  F.,  Speech  in  the  South  Carolina  House,  December 
11,  1850,  on  Federal  Relations,  Charleston,  S.  C.  (The  co- 
operationists’  attitude  towards  Georgia.) 

State-Rights  Party  of  Georgia,  Proceedings  of,  November  13, 
1833,  Savannah,  1833.  (Favoring  nullification  and  South 
Carolina.) 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  More  of  Georgia  and  Ohio,  Wash¬ 
ington,  D.  C.,  1855.  (Speech  in  national  House,  continuing 
his  reply  to  Campbell  of  Ohio,  and  comparing  the  economic 
condition  of  the  two  states,  to  the  advantage  of  Georgia.) 

Townsend,  John,  The  Southern  States,  Their  Present  Peril, 
Charleston,  South  Carolina,  1850.  (Able  statement  of  the 
secessionist  view  and  a  detailed  calculation  of  the  possibilities 
concerning  civil  war.) 

Treascott,  W.  H.,  The  Position  and  Cause  of  the  South,  Char¬ 
leston,  1850.  (A  secessionist  reply  to  Toombs  and  the  Geor¬ 
gia  advocates  of  compromise.) 

The  Union,  Being  a  Condemnation  of  Mr.  Helper’s  Scheme, 
With  a  Plan  for  the  Settlement  of  the  Irresistable  Conflict, 
n.d.  (Included  in  Democratic  Opinions  on  Slavery,  1776- 
1860.  New  York  Public  Library.  Title  descriptive.) 

Union  Celebration  in  Macon,  Georgia,  February  22,  1851; 
Macon,  1851.  (Copy  in  possession  of  Mr.  Warren  Grice, 
Macon,  Georgia.  Copy  in  possession  of  Dr.  U.  B.  Phillips. 
A  valuable  pamphlet,  containing  important  letters  sent  the 
local  committee  of  the  Georgia  Union  party,  especially  by 
Union  Democrats,  but  also  by  Whigs  and  northern  political 
leaders  of  both  parties.  Contains  important  comments  on  the 
history  of  political  parties  in  Georgia,  on  the  slavery  prob- 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


379 


lem,  and  on  the  significance  of  the  Union  victory  in  the 
state.) 

Weston,  G.  M.,  Poor  Whites  of  the  South,  Washington,  1856. 
(Harvard  University  Library.) 

Wellborn,  M.  J.,  To  the  Voters  of  the  Second  Congressional 
District,  n.d.,  probably  August  or  September,  1850,  copy  in 
the  Library  of  the  University  of  Michigan,  Pamphlets  on 
American  Slavery,  IV.  No.  18.  (Address  by  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  congressman  from  the  second  district  of  Georgia  urg¬ 
ing  his  constituents  to  accept  the  Clay  Compromise.) 

Yeadon,  Richard,  Speech  of  Mr.  Richard  Y eadon  of  Charles¬ 
ton  to  the  Madison  Georgia  Whig  Convention,  July  31,  1844. 
Charleston,  S.  C.,  1844.  (Relations  between  Georgia  and 
South  Carolina  Whigs.) 

IX — Public  Records  and  Proceedings 

Congressional  Globe,  for  1847-1851,  inclusive,  especially  for  the 
twenty-ninth  Congress,  second  session,  and  the  thirty-first 
Congress. 

Journal  of  a  General  Convention  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  1833. 
(A  constitutional  convention  which  considered  the  problem 
of  the  “white  basis”  of  representation  in  the  state  legisla¬ 
ture.  Copy  in  Columbia  University  Library.) 

Journal  of  the  Convention  to  Reduce  and  Equalise  the  Repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  State  of  Georgia, 
1839.  (Copy  in  Columbia  University  Library.) 

Journals  of  the  Georgia  Senate,  1847-1848,  and  1849-1850. 

Journals  of  the  Georgia  House  of  Representatives,  1847-1848, 
and  1849-1850. 

Acts  of  Georgia ,  1847-1848,  and  1849-1850. 

Cobb,  T.  R.  R.,  Digest  of  the  Statute  Laws  of  Georgia,  in  Force 
Prior  to  1851,  Athens,  Georgia,  1851. 

Cobb,  T.  R.  R.,  Reports  of  the  Georgia  Supreme  Court.  (Vol. 
XIV.  499,  ff.  contains  account  of  the  important  case  of  Padel- 
ford,  Fay,  and  Co.,  v.  City  of  Savannah,  which  throws  much 
light  on  the  constitutional  theories  of  Judge  H.  L.  Benning, 
the  Georgia  secessionist  leader,  and  upon  Georgia’s  relations 
with  the  federal  Supreme  Court.) 

Debates  and  Proceedings  of  the  Georgia  Convention,  1850,  Mil- 
ledgeville,  1850.  (Copies  in  Georgia  Historical  Society 


380 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Library,  University  of  Pennsylvania  Library,  University  of 
Chicago  Library,  Yale  University  Library,  also  in  Federal 
Union,  issues  of  December  17,  and  December  24,  1850.  Re¬ 
ported  by  A.  E.  Marshall,  of  that  journal,  and  printed  by  its 
press.  Essential  for  the  study  of  the  state  convention  of 
1850.  Also  contains  executive  proclamation  calling  the  con¬ 
vention.) 

Journal  of  the  Georgia  Convention,  1850,  Milledgeville,  1850. 
(University  of  Pennsylvania  Library.) 

Resolutions,  Address  and  Journal  of  Proceedings  of  the  South¬ 
ern  Convention,  Nashville,  1850.  (Copy  in  Harvard  Univer¬ 
sity  Library.  Directly  useful  for  its  record  of  the  Georgia 
members  of  the  “Nashville  Convention.”) 

Resolutions  and  Address  of  the  Southern  Convention,  Published 
by  Order  of  the  Convention,  Nashville,  1850.  (Copy  in 
Georgia  Historical  Society  Library.  A  useful  pamphlet, 
since  the  complete  resolutions  are  difficult  to  find  elsewhere.) 

X — Source  Collections 

Ames,  H.  V.,  State  Documents  on  Federal  Relations,  Phila¬ 
delphia,  1911. 

Cluskey,  M.  W.,  The  Democratic  Hand  Book,  New  York, 
1856.  (Material  on  party  platforms,  etc.,  largely  for  185 1  - 
1856.) 

Cluskey,  M.  W.,  The  Political  Text  Book,  Philadelphia,  1859. 
(Useful  for  sources  not  available  elsewhere.) 

Democratic  Textbook,  The,  By  “G.  H.  H.,”  New  York  and 
Philadelphia,  1848.  (Copy  in  New  York  Public  Library. 
Much  material  concerning  the  attitude  of  both  major  parties 
toward  the  Mexican  War.) 

Greely,  H.  and  Cleveland,  J.  F.,  A  Political  Text  Book  for 
1860,  New  York,  1860.  (Includes  national  platforms,  etc., 
1850-1860.  New  York  Public  Library.) 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  Plantation  and  Frontier.  (Vols.  I  and  II  in 
Commons,  J.  R.  [Ed.]  A  Documentary  History  of  American 
Industrial  Society,  Cleveland,  1910-1911.) 

XI — Statistical  Collections 

American  Almanac ,  Boston,  1830-1861. 

The  Seventh  Census  of  the  United  States,  Washington,  D.  C., 
1850.  Bancroft,  J.,  Census  of  the  City  of  Savannah,  Savan¬ 
nah,  1848.  DeBow,  J.  D.  B.,  Historical  View  of  the  United 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


381 


States,  Compendium  of  the  Seventh  Census,  Washington, 
1854. 

DeBow,  J.  D.  B.,  The  Industrial  Resources  of  the  Southern  and 
Western  States,  New  Orleans,  1852.  (Valuable  collection 
of  contemporary  essays  and  surveys  containing  statistical 
data.) 

Georgia,  Statistics  of,  an  abstract  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  com¬ 
piled  by  authority  of  the  Legislature,  from  the  Census  of 
1850,  Milledgeville,  1851.  (Copy  in  Pennsylvania  Historical 
Society.) 

Sherwood,  Adiel,  A  Gazetteer  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  Wash¬ 
ington,  D.  C.,  1829,  1837,  Atlanta,  1860.  (Some  interest¬ 
ing  statistical  and  historical  data.  Sherwood  preceded  White 
in  the  statistical  study  of  his  state,  and  regarded  the  latter 
as  an  interloper.) 

White,  G.  M.,  Statistics  of  the  State  of  Georgia,  Savannah, 
1849.  (Contains  some  statistics,  as  well  as  much  contem¬ 
porary  description,  and  map  of  the  state  for  1849.  Useful 
surveys  of  the  counties.) 

White,  G.  M.,  Historical  Collections  of  Georgia,  New  York, 
1854.  (A  work  difficult  to  classify,  containing  statistical, 
biographical,  and  historical  data.  Not  so  useful  as  the 
above.) 

XII — Geographical  Descriptions  and  Maps 

Sherwood,  Adiel,  Gazetteer  of  Georgia,  Washington,  1837, 
2nd  edition.  Contains  four  maps  for  the  fourth  decade. 
(For  others  in  this  decade  see  those  of  Wellborn,  Tanner 
and  Mitchell,  listed  by  Phillips,  U.  B.,  Georgia  and  State 
Rights,  p.  218.) 

Tanner,  H.  S.,  Map  of  Georgia  and  Alabama,  1846.  (Copy 
in  Georgia  Historical  Society.  Shows  roads  and  railroads.) 

Bonner,  W.  G.,  Map  of  Georgia,  1861.  (A  large  wall  map.) 

Neueste  Karte  von  Georgia  mit  seinem  Strassen,  Eisenbahnen,. 
u.  Entfermmgen,  1845,  Bibliographischen  Instituts  zu  Hild- 
burghavsen,  Amsterdam,  Paris  u.  Philadelphia.  (Copy  in 
Pennsylvania  Historical  Society.  A  German  equivalent  of 
Tanner’s  map  of  1846.) 

Williams,  W.  T.,  Map  of  Georgia,  with  its  Geological  Fea¬ 
tures,  in  White,  G.  M.,  Statistics  of  Georgia,  1849.  (Shows 
the  usual  as  well  as  the  geological  features.) 


382 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


XIII — Special  Studies — Contemporary  and 
Non-Contemporary 

For  practical  convenience  a  distinction  is  made  between 
■“Contemporary”  and  “Non-Contemporary  Studies.”  For  this 
purpose  the  date  1880  is  arbitrarily  selected  as  a  dividing 
point,  those  titles  published  prior  to  that  year  being  listed  as 
“Contemporary.”  The  supposition  is  that  most  of  such  works 
were  written  by  those  who  participated  in  the  activities  of  1847- 
1852. 

CONTEMPORARY  STUDIES 

Adams,  Nehemiah,  A  Southside  View  of  Slavery ,  2nd  edi¬ 
tion,  Boston,  1855.  (Favorable  view  of  slavery  in  Georgia, 
by  a  Massachusetts  man.) 

Cobb,  T.  R.  R.,  Law  of  Negro  Slavery,  Philadelphia,  1858. 
(Contains  historical  sketch  of  slavery  from  the  viewpoint  of 
a  Georgia  planter-lawyer.) 

Christy,  David,  Cotton  Is  King,  Cincinnati,  1855.  (An  eco¬ 
nomic  analysis  of  slavery  and  the  tariff.) 

Cairnes,  J.  E.,  The  Slave  Power,  London,  1862,  1863.  (The 
anti-slavery  view.) 

Fowler,  W.  C.,  The  Sectional  Controversy,  or  Passages  in  the 
Political  History  of  the  United  States,  New  York,  1863. 
(Written  in  the  fifties.  Critical  and  well  documented.) 
Fitziiugh,  George,  Cannibals  All,  Richmond,  1857.  (The 
apotheosis  of  slavery.) 

Fitziiugh,  George,  Sociology  for  the  South,  Richmond,  1854. 
(See  above.) 

Giddings,  J.  R.,  History  of  the  Rebellion,  New  York,  1864. 
(The  abolitionist  view  of  the  Congressional  struggle,  1849- 
1850.) 

Goodloe,  D.  R.,  An  Inquiry  Into  the  Causes  which  have 
Retarded  the  Accumulation  of  Wealth  and  Increase  in  Popu¬ 
lation  of  the  Southern  States,  Washington,  1846. 

Helper,  H.  R.,  The  Impending  Crisis  of  the  South,  New 
York,  1860. 

Hundley,  D.  R.,  Social  Relations  in  our  Southern  States,  New 
York,  1860.  (A  rare  and  valuable  study  of  social  classes  in 
the  South  by  a  southerner  familiar  with  both  the  North  and 
the  South.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


383 


Kettell,  T.  P.,  Southern  Wealth  and  Northern  Profits  as 
exhibited  in  Statistical  Facts  and  Official  Figures,  New  York, 
1860. 

Lyell,  Sir  Charles,  A  Second  Visit  to  the  United  States,  New 
York,  1849.  (Incidental  observations  on  Georgia  society.) 

Lanman,  Charles,  Letters  from  the  Allegheny  Mountains, 
New  York,  1849. 

Olmsted,  F.  L.,  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  2nd  Ed.,  New  York, 
1862. 

Olmsted,  F.  L.,  Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States,  New 
York,  1856. 

Parsons,  C.  G.,  Inside  View  of  Slavery  or  Tour  among  the 
Planters,  with  an  introduction  by  Mrs.  H.  B.  Stowe,  Bos¬ 
ton,  1855.  (Impressions  of  Georgia  by  a  professional  man 
of  strong  anti-slavery  opinions.) 

Paine,  L.  W.,  Six  Years  in  a  Georgia  Prison,  Boston,  1852. 
(Personal  narrative  of  a  Northern  mechanic  and  teacher  of 
abolitionist  views.  Interesting  comment  on  social  and  eco¬ 
nomic  conditions.) 

Ruffin,  Edmund,  The  Political  Economy  of  Slavery,  Rich¬ 
mond,  1857. 

Russell,  Robert,  North  America,  Its  Agriculture  and  Climate, 
Edinburgh,  1857.  (Includes  a  study  of  slavery  economics.) 

Van  Evrie,  J.  H.,  Negroes  and  Negro  Slavery,  New  York, 
1853.  (Pro-slavery  Anthropology.) 

Weston,  George  M.,  The  Progress  of  Slavery  in  the  United 
States,  Washington,  D.  C.,  1857.  (A  keen  contemporary 
analysis  of  the  economic  and  political  phenomena  associated 
with  slavery.  Calls  attention  to  the  often  unrecognized  con¬ 
servatism  of  the  planter  class  in  the  sectional  struggle.  Mod¬ 
erately  anti-slavery  in  opinion.) 

RECENT  STUDIES 

Ames,  H.  V.,  “Calhoun  and  the  Secession  Movement  of  1850,” 
University  of  Pennsylvania  Public  Lectures,  1917-1918. 

Boucher,  C.  S.,  “The  Ante-Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Caro¬ 
lina  Towards  Manufacturing  and  Agriculture,”  Washington 
University  Studies,  III.  Pt.  II.  Humanistic  Series,  No.  2. 


384 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Boucher,  C.  S.,  “The  Secession  and  Cooperation  Movements 
in  South  Carolina,  1848-1852,”  Washington  University- 
Studies,  V.,  Humanistic  Series,  Pt.  II,  No.  2. 

Boucher,  C.  S.,  “In  Re  That  Aggressive  Slavocracy,”  Missis¬ 
sippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  VIII.  Nos.  1  and  2  (June- 
September,  1921).  (An  emphatic  refutation  of  the  tra¬ 
ditional  northern  thesis.) 

Brawley,  B.,  A  Social  History  of  the  American  Negro,  New 
York,  1921.  (Considers  the  slavery  question  incidental  to 
the  race  problem.) 

Brooks,  R.  P.,  “Howell  Cobb  and  the  Crisis  of  1850,”  Missis¬ 
sippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  IV.  No.  3  (December,  1917). 
Also  printed  as  Bulletin  of  the  University  of  Georgia,  XVIII. 
No.  2.  (A  brief  study  by  the  best  informed  student  of  Cobb’s 
career.  Especially  good  for  the  events  of  1851.) 

Brooks,  R.  P.,  “A  Local  Study  of  the  Race  Problem,  Race 
Relations  in  the  Eastern  Piedmont  Region  of  Georgia,” 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  XXVI.  193-221. 

Brooks,  R.  P.,  “The  Agrarian  Revolution  in  Georgia,”  Bul¬ 
letin,  University  of  Wisconsin,  No.  639,  History  series,  V. 
3,  No.  3,  Madison,  Wis.,  1914. 

Brown,  G.  W.,  The  Lower  South  in  American  History,  New 
York,  1903. 

Clark,  V.,  History  of  Manufactures  in  the  United  States r 
Washington,  D.  C.,  1916. 

Cole,  A.  C.,  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South,  American  His¬ 
torical  Association  Prize  Essay,  1912. 

Cole,  A.  C.,  “The  South  and  the  Right  of  Secession  in  the 
Early  Fifties,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical  Review,  I.  No. 
3  (December,  1914). 

Collins,  W.  H.,  The  Domestic  Slave  Trade  of  the  Southern 
States,  New  York,  1904. 

Cotterill,  R.  S.,  “Southern  Railroads  and  Western  Trade, 
1840-1850,”  Mississippi  Historical  Review,  III.,  427-441. 

Coulter,  E.  M.,  “The  Nullification  Movement  in  Georgia,” 
Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  V.  No.  2  (March,  1921).  (An 
able  account.) 

Coulter,  E.  M.,  “A  Georgia  Educational  Movement  During 
the  Eighteen  Hundred  Fifties,”  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly , 
IX.  No.  1,  pp.  1-33.  (December,  1924.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


385 


Embry,  M.  A.,  A  Study  of  the  Secession  Movement  in  Georgia, 
M.  A.  Thesis,  University  of  Chicago,  1916  (bound  manu¬ 
script,  University  of  Chicago  Library.  Relates  to  both 
the  1850  and  1860  periods.  Useful  only  as  a  summary  of 
several  secondary  accounts.) 

Fleming,  W.  L.,  “Immigration  to  the  Southern  States,”  Politi¬ 
cal  Science  Quarterly,  XX.,  276-297 . 

Foster,  H.  D.,  “Webster’s  Seventh  of  March  Speech  and  the 
Secession  Movement,  1850,”  American  Historical  Rveiew, 
XXVII.,  250  ff.  (January,  1922).  (Able  presentation  of 
the  influence  of  Webster  and  the  Compromise  in  averting 
danger  of  secession  in  the  South.  Exaggerates,  however,  the 
degree  of  secessionist  spirit  in  Georgia  prior  to  March  4, 
1850,  and  the  danger  of  actual  secession  thereafter.) 

Garner,  J.  W.,  “The  First  Struggle  Over  Secession  in  Missis¬ 
sippi,”  Mississippi  Historical  Society  Publications,  IV.,  89 
ff.  (Superseded  by  Miss  Hearon’s  study.) 

Hamer,  P.  M.,  The  Secession  Movement  in  South  Carolina, 
Allentown,  (Pa.)  1918. 

Hammond,  M.  B.,  “The  Cotton  Industry,”  Ithaca,  N.  Y.,  1897,. 
American  Economic  Association  Publications,  New  Series , 

No.  1. 

Harper,  R.  M.,  “Development  of  Agriculture  in  Upper  Geor¬ 
gia,  1850  to  1880,”  Georgia  Historical  Quarterly,  VI.,  No. 
1,  1-27. 

Herndon,  D.  T.,  “The  Nashville  Convention,”  Alabama  His¬ 
torical  Society  Publications,  V.  203,  ff.  (1904).  (Based  upon 
newspapers  but  generally  reliable.) 

Hearon,  Cleo,  Mississippi  and  Compromise  of  1850,  Oxford, 
Miss.,  1913. 

Ingle,  Edward,  Southern  Sidelights,  A  Picture  of  Social  and 
Economic  Life  in  the  South  a  Generation  before  the  War, 
New  York,  1896. 

Tervey,  T.  D.,  The  Slave  Trade,  Slavery  and  Color,  Charles¬ 
ton,  S.  C„  1925. 

Jones,  C.  E.,  Education  in  Georgia,  in  Contributions  to  Ameri¬ 
can  Educational  History,  ed.  H.  B.  Adams.  United  States 
Bureau  of  Education  Monographs,  No.  5,  1889.  (Not  based! 
on  extensive  research  but  gives  a  general  account  of  the 
main  features  of  educational  evolution.) 


386 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Lawton,  Alexander  R.,  Judicial  Controversies  on  Federal 
Appellate  Jurisdiction,  President’s  Address,  38th  Annual 
Meeting  of  the  Georgia  Bar  Association,  Tybee,  Ga.,  1921. 
(A  valuable  survey  of  the  relations  of  Georgia  to  the  Fed¬ 
eral  Supreme  Court,  which  is  especially  useful  for  its  study 
of  the  constitutional  theories  of  H.  L.  Benning,  the  Georgia 
secessionist  leader.) 

Macy,  Jesse,  Political  Parties  in  the  United  States,  1846-1861, 
New  York,  1900. 

McLendon,  S.  G.,  History  of  the  Public  Domain  of  Georgia, 
Atlanta,  1924. 

Meyer,  B.  H.,  History  of  Transportation  in  the  United  States 
before  1860,  Washington,  1917. 

Merritt,  Elizabeth,  “James  H.  Hammond,”  Johns  Hopkins 
University  Studies,  Series  XLI.,  No.  4  (1923). 

Mellen,  G.  F.,  “H.  W.  Hilliard  and  W.  E.  Yancy,”  Sewanee 
Review,  XVII.  32-50. 

Mitchell,  Broadus,  “The  Rise  of  Cotton  Mills  in  the  South,” 
Johns  Hopkins  University,  Studies  in  History  and  Political 
Science,  XXXIX.  No.  2,  Baltimore,  1921.  (An  able  study. 
Exhibits  somewhat  unsympathetic  attitude  towards  the  ante¬ 
bellum  South,  and  misunderstands  certain  phases  of  ante¬ 
bellum  manufacturing.  Contradicts  Clark’s  thesis  that  there 
was  continuity  between  the  ante-  and  post-bellum  industries.) 

Newberry,  F.,  “The  Nashville  Convention,”  South  Atlantic 
Quarterly,  XI.  (1912),  No.  3,  p.  259,  ff. 

Nichols,  R.  F.,  “The  Democratic  Machine,  1850-1854,”  Col¬ 
umbia  University  Studies  in  History,  Economics  and  Public 
Law,  CXI.,  No.  1,  Whole  No.  248,  1923. 

Persinger,  C.  E.,  “The  Bargain  of  1844  as  the  Origin  of  the 
Wilmot  Proviso,”  American  Historical  Association  Report, 
1911,  II. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  American  Negro  Slavery,  New  York,  1918. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “The  Decadence  of  the  Plantation  System,” 
Annals  of  the  American  Academy  of  Political  and  Social 
Science,  XXXV.  37-41. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “An  American  State  Owned  Railroad”  (The 
Western  and  Atlantic),  Yale  Review,  XV.,  No.  3,  pp.  259- 
282  (Old  Series). 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


387 


Phillips,  U.  B.,  “The  Economic  Cost  of  Slave-Holding,” 
Political  Science  Quarterly,  XX.  257-275. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “Georgia  and  State  Rights,”  American  His¬ 
torical  Association  Report,  1901,  II. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “The  Literary  Movement  for  Secession,”  in 
W.  A.  Dunning  Studies  in  Southern  History  and  Politics , 
Chapter  II,  Columbia  University  Press,  1914. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “The  Origin  and  Growth  of  the  Southern 
Black  Belts,”  American  Historical  Review,  XI.  798-816. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “Plantations  with  Slave  Labor  and  Free,” 
American  Historical  Review,  XXX.  738-753. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “The  Southern  Whigs,”  in  the  Turner  Es¬ 
says,  New  York,  1910. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  “Transportation  in  the  Ante-Bellum  Souths 
An  Economic  Analysis,”  Quarterly  Journal  of  Economics,. 
XIX.  434-451. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  A  History  of  Transportation  in  the  Eastern 
Cotton  Belt  to  1860,  New  York,  1908. 

Powell,  Edward  P.,  Nullification  and  Secession  in  the  United 
States:  A  History  of  the  Six  Attempts  During  the  First  Cen¬ 
tury  of  the  Republic,  New  York,  1897. 

Reed,  J.  C.,  The  Brother’s  War,  Boston,  1905. 

Russel,  R.  R.,  “Economic  Aspects  of  Southern  Sectionalism, 
1840-1861,”  University  of  Illinois  Studies  in  the  Social  Sci¬ 
ences,  XI.  Nos.  1-2. 

Sioussat,  St.  G.  L.,  “Cooperation  for  the  Development  of  the 
Material  Welfare  of  the  South,”  The  South  in  the  Building 
of  the  Nation,  IV.  173-179. 

Sioussat,  St.  G.  L.,  “Tennessee,  the  Compromise  of  1850,  and 
the  Nashville  Convention,”  Mississippi  Valley  Historical 
Review,  II.  259  ff.,  December,  1915. 

Smith,  Justin,  The  War  With  Mexico,  2  Vols.,  New  York* 

1919. 

Stone,  A.  H.,  “Some  Problems  of  Southern  Economic  His¬ 
tory,”  American  Historical  Review,  XIII.  779-797. 

Stone,  A.  H.,  “The  Cotton  Factorage  System  of  the  Southern 
States,”  American  Historical  Review ,  XX.  557-565. 

Stone,  A.  H.,  Studies  in  the  American  Race  Problem,  New 
York,  1908. 


388 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Taylor,  A.  A.,  “Movement  of  Negroes  to  the  Gulf  States,” 
Journal  of  Negro  History,  III,  No.  4,  pp.  367-383.  (Nov¬ 
ember,  1923.) 

Tillinghast,  J.  A.,  The  Negro  in  Africa  and  America,  New 
York,  1902. 

Wagstaff,  H.  McG.,  “State  Rights  and  Political  Parties  in 
North  Carolina,  1776-1861,”  Johns  Hopkins  University 
Studies  in  History  and  Political  Science,  XXIV,  (1906). 

White,  M.  J.,  The  Secession  Movement  in  the  United  States, 
1847-1852,  New  Orleans,  1916.  (Of  relatively  little  value 
for  Georgia.) 


XIV —  State  Histories 

State  Histories :  Like  most  American  states,  Georgia  lacks  a 
■critical  and  comprehensive  history.  Few  of  the  state  histories 
come  down  so  far  in  time  as  1850.  As  exceptions  to  this,  note: 
The  History  of  Georgia,  in  The  South  in  the  Building  of  the 
Nation,  II.  122-242.  (The  only  critical  survey  of  the  state’s 
entire  history.  It  is  necessarily  brief  and  contains  chapters 
of  varying  merit.) 

Avery,  I.  W.,  History  of  Georgia,  1850-1881,  New  York,  1881. 
(Suggestive  but  uncritical.  Only  chapter  iii  is  pertinent 
here.) 

Brooks,  R.  P.,  History  of  Georgia,  Chicago,  1913.  (A  brief 
text  book,  but  written  from  the  modern  critical  point  of 
view.) 

Knight,  L.  L.,  A  Standard  History  of  Georgia  and  Georgians, 
New  York,  1917.  (Vols.  I-II,  inc.,  deal  with  state  history, 
Vols.  IV-VI,  inc.,  with  biography.) 

Smith,  C.  H.,  The  Story  of  Georgia  and  the  Georgia  People, 
1736-1860,  Macon,  1900. 

XV —  Local  Histories 

Georgia  local  histories,  like  the  majority  of  such  works,  are 
usually  laudatory  and  uncritical,  and  reflect  the  interests  of  the 
antiquarian  rather  than  of  the  historian.  Note  as  exceptions : 
Butler,  J.  C.,  Historical  Records  of  Macon,  Georgia,  Macon, 
1879.  (Shows  interest  in  important  historical  developments 
and  contains  some  source  material.) 


BIBLIOGRAPHY 


389 


Chappel,  A.  H.,  Miscellanies  of  Georgia,  Atlanta  (Ga.)» 
1874.  (Contains  miscellaneous  collections  of  facts  concern¬ 
ing  towns  and  counties  which  are  occasionally  useful.) 

Dutcher,  S.  and  Jones,  C.  C.,  History  of  Augusta,  Syracuse, 
New  York,  1890.  (Rather  superior  to  the  ordinary  local 
history  and  deals  with  an  unusually  interesting  city.) 

Fort,  Kate  H.,  The  Fort  and  Fanin  Families,  Chattanooga, 
Tenn.,  1903.  (A  reliable  picture  of  social  life  in  Middle 
Georgia.) 

Gamble,  Thomas,  Jr.,  A  History  of  the  City  Government  of 
Savannah,  Georgia,  From  1790-1901,  Savannah,  1901. 
(Drawn  from  the  Savannah  archives,  important  for  social 
and  economic  conditions.) 

Wylly,  C.  S.,  Annals  of  Glynn  County,  Georgia,  Brunswick, 
Georgia,  1897.  (Deals  with  an  unusually  interesting  county, 
the  only  one  in  Georgia  in  1850  which  possessed  a  very  large 
majority  of  Negro  population). 

XVI — General  Histories 

Channing,  Edward,  History  of  the  United  States,  VI.  New 
York,  1925. 

Dodd,  William  E.,  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  New  Haven,  1921. 
( The  Chronicles  of  America,  Vol.  27.) 

Dodd,  William  E.,  Expansion  and  Conflict,  New  York,  1915. 
( Riverside  Historical  Series,  III.) 

Garrison,  G.  P.,  Western  Extension,  New  York,  1906.  (The 
American  Nation:  A  History,  Vol.  17.) 

McMaster,  J.  B.,  A  History  of  the  People  of  the  United 
States,  VII.  and  VIII.,  New  York,  1914,  1919. 

Smith,  T.  C.,  Parties  and  Slavery,  New  York,  1906.  ( The 

American  Nation:  A  History,  Vol.  18.) 

Stephenson,  N.  W.,  Texas  and  the  Mexican  War,  New 
Haven,  1921.  ( The  Chronicles  of  America,  Vol.  24.) 


INDEX 


Abolitionists,  see  also  Antislavery;  31  fF., 
45,  134,  167,  168;  identified  with  social¬ 
ists,  33;  activities  in  Georgia,  87  f . ;  ac¬ 
cused  of  subsidizing  Georgia  newspaper, 
294  f. 

Agriculture,  southern  methods  poor,  21; 
reform  movement  in  Georgia,  21. 

Alabama,  72,  138,  166,  186,  269,  272,  276, 
284,  297,  302,  322,  340,  355. 

American  Almanac,  The,  cited,  20. 

Ames,  H.  V.,  “Calhoun  and  the  Secession 
Movement  of  1850,”  cited,  137,  214,  272; 
Slate  Documents,  cited,  51,  94,  134,  137, 
213,  227,  228,  272,  330. 

Anderson,  J.  W.,  Speaker,  Georgia  House, 
229. 

Andrews,  G.,  Reminiscences,  cited,  12,  58, 
75,  91,  121. 

Andrews,  L.  F.  W.,  editor,  Macon  Citizen, 
threatened,  119,  395;  accused  of  aboli¬ 
tionism,  JH94 

Antislavery  Movement,  see  also  Abolition¬ 
ists;  54,  218;  Georgia  reaction  to,  30  f., 
37  f. ;  aggressive  character,  49;  prin¬ 
ciples  held  by  northerners  in  Georgia, 
84-86;  among  northern  Whigs,  101  ff. ; 
attempt  to  block  Texan  annexation,  127; 
to  adopt  Proviso,  134,  137,  181. 

Appling  County,  174. 

Arnold,  Richard  D.,  202  n.,  274,  308,  314, 
359  n. ;  declares  respectable  Savannah 
families  Unionists,  73  n.;  on  violence  at 
polls,  122;  on  South  Carolina  radicals  in 
Savannah,  278,  287;  reaction  to  Mass 
Meeting,  287;  on  Savannah  meeting, 
1850,  287;  in  state  convention,  325,  329; 
tells  governor  Union  Democrats  will  not 
follow  him,  334. 

Arnold  MSS,  cited,  73,  89,  274,  278,  287, 
309,  321,  334,  348,  352,  353,  360. 

Arnold,  R.  D.,  Oration  Delivered  to  Union 
and  Southern  Rights  Association,  1835, 
cited,  96  f . ;  Remarks  of,  on  the  Georgia 
Legislature’ s  Resolutions  against  Senator 
Berrien,  cited,  124,  126. 

Athens  (Ga.),  16,  118. 

Athens  Banner,  187,  244,  298;  suggests 
abolition  of  state  senate,  113;  leading 
Union  Democratic  organ,  165;  attacks 
Calhounites,  204  f.;  on  “demagogery”  of 
legislature,  251;  opposes  Nashville  Con¬ 
vention,  255;  describes  failure  to  hold 
preliminary  Nashville  Convention  election, 
256  f. ;  gives  burlesque  of  governor’s 
proclamation,  318  f. 

Atlanta,  172,  294;  railroad  connections, 

16  ff. ;  effect  of  early  railroads  upon, 
18  n. 

Augusta,  21,  116  f.,  121,  161,  180,  203; 
trade  to  Charleston  and  Savannah,  14  f., 
17,  56  f. ;  railroad  connections,  16  ff. ; 
banking  in,  19  f.;  manufacturing  in,  26; 
a  “northern  city”  in  1852,  83;  state- 
rights  Whigs  in,  194. 

Augusta  Chronicle,  see  also  Lee,  Daniel; 
21,  36,  120  f.,  161,  192,  208,  246,  248, 
259,  279;  debates  slavery  economics, 

34  f. ;  declares  future  of  slavery  a  matter 
of  profits,  35;  criticises  South  Carolina, 
63;  northern  editor  of,  84;  editor’s  resig¬ 


nation  demanded,  86,  119;  declares  seces¬ 
sion  impossible,  108  n.;  owners  distinct 
from  editors,  116;  largest  newspaper  cir¬ 
culation,  117;  attacks  Polk  and  Mexican 
War,  14L-  conservative  constitutional 
theories  oY,  201-203;  denies  “right  of 
revolution,”  202  f . ;  attacked  by  Demo¬ 
crats,  202-204;  claims  Democrats  desire 
secession,  219;  fears  need  of  secession, 
Jan.,  1850,  245;  optimistic  about  compro¬ 
mise,  Feb.,  1850,  245;  condemns  suppres¬ 
sion  of  Macon  *  Citizen,  (  295 ;  supports 
Scott,  1852,  361 J  V 

Augusta  Constitiaionalist,  165,  260;  de¬ 

mands  dismissal  of  Lee  of  the  Chronicle, 
86,  119;  circulation  of  different  editions, 
117;  joins  southern  movement,  164,  180; 
defends  “right  of  revolution,”  202  f.;  at¬ 
tacks  Toombs,  247. 

Augusta  Republic,  192,  259;  circulation, 
117;  supports  Clay,  1848,  161  f.;  attacks 
the  Chronicle,  203  f . ;  supports  Nashville 
Convention,  255. 

Avary,  M.  L.,  A.  H.  Stephens,  cited,  127, 
155,  160,  329. 

Baltimore  Sun,  maintains  correspondent  at 
Savannah,  306  n. ;  gives  best  reports  on 
1850  campaign,  318  n. 

Banks,  in  Georgia,  18-20;  attitude  of 
Democrats  towards,  126  n.,  217  f.,  218 
n. ;  issues  concerning,  declared  dead  in 
Georgia,  1851,  351  n. 

Barbecues,  Public,  and  politics,  in  Upper 
Georgia,  68;  general  political  significance, 
118,  121;  southern-rights  barbecue,  Col¬ 
umbus,  1850,  276  f. 

Barnum,  P.  T.,  311,  319. 

Bartow,  F.  S.,  of  Savannah,  in  state  con¬ 
vention,  325;  introduces  “Chatham”  reso¬ 
lutions,  327;  appeals  for  Union,  333. 

Bell,  John,  compromise  plan  of,  1850,  241. 

Penning,  H.  L.,  269,  273,  274,  293,  324; 
state-rights  ideas  and  ideal  of  “consolid¬ 
ated”  southern  republic,  189  f.,  292;  de¬ 
clares  southern  Union  sentiment  unreli¬ 
able,  252;  leader  of  delegation  to  Nash¬ 
ville,  265;  resolutions  at  Nashville,  270  f. ; 
significance  of  his  Missouri  line  ulti¬ 
matum,  270  f . ;  Address  of,  Commissioner 
from  Georgia  to  the  Virginia  State  Con¬ 
vention,  1861,  cited,  40. 

Benton.  T.  H.,  188,  206;  denies  race  danger, 
44;  Thirty  Years’  View,  cited,  44. 

Berrien,  John  McPherson,  108,  132,  138* 
154  f.,  157,  159,  163,  191  f.,  194  f.,  201* 
205,  237,  239,  292,  306;  holds  to  Whig 
party,  102;  denies  “senatorial  responsi¬ 
bility,”  124;  opposes  Texan  annexation, 
130  f . ;  opposes  all  extension,  135;  criti¬ 
cism  of,  by  Justin  Smith,  136  n.;  supports 
Clayton  Compromise,  158,  169  f . ;  backs 
Clay  and  old  Whig  principles,  1848,  161, 
162;  versus  Stephens,  169  f.,  199;  in 
“Southern  Caucus,”  183;  his  “Address,” 
184  f.;  opposes  Clay  Compromise,  240r 
267-269;  warns  Senate  Georgia  will  act, 
240;  Clay’s  appeal  to,  267  f . ;  seeks  eco¬ 
nomic  defence  against  North,  268  f.,  315- 
317;  votes  on  Omnibus  bills,  269  n.;  only 


392 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


one  county  supports,  1850,  317,  321;  reso¬ 
lutions  thanking,  in  state  convention,  ig¬ 
nored,  327;  accepts  Georgia  Platform, 
350;  defeated  for  Senate,  358. 

Berrien,  J.  M.,  “Address  to  the  People  of 
the  United  States,”  cited,  185. 

Berrien  MSS,  cited,  162  f.,  170,  268. 

Bibb  County,  see  Macon. 

Black  Belt,  102;  location  of,  11;  Negro 
population  in,  14,  46;  fear  of  race  prob¬ 
lem  in,  46,  67;  attitude  towards  Negroes 
and  slavery  in,  69  f.,  76. 

Black,  Edward  J.,  praises  Calhoun’s  “south¬ 
ern  movement,”  1847,  141;  warns  Cal¬ 
houn  of  Georgia  conservatism,  147  f. ; 
secretly  requests  resolutions  for  Georgia 
legislature,  148. 

Bluffton  Movement,  139  n. ;  nature  of,  and 
results,  127-129. 

Bonner’s  Map  of  Georgia,  1849,  cited,  10,  17. 

Boston,  fugitive  slaves  from  Georgia  in, 
313;  agents  threatened  in,  313;  Georgia 
papers  warn,  313  f. 

Boston  Atlas,  debates  slavery  economics,  34; 
on  a  “solid  North,”  143  n. 

Boston  Courier,  ascribes  Georgia  conserva¬ 
tism  to  prosperity,  52,  291;  notes  Geor¬ 
gians  are  friendly  to  North,  87;  personal 
attack  on  Toombs  and  Stephens,  242  n.; 
attacks  Georgia  non-intercourse  bill,  244; 
maintains  correspondent  at  Savannah, 
306  n. 

Boston  Liberator,  hopes  for  civil  war,  242; 
accuses  Toombs  and  Stephens  of  Taylor’s 
death,  266  f. 

Boston  Post,  debates  slavery  economics,  34. 

Boucher,  C.  S.,  on  Missouri  line,  141  n.; 
“The  Annexation  of  Texas  and  the  Bluff- 
ton  Movement,”  cited,  128;  “The  Ante- 
Bellum  Attitude  of  South  Carolina  toward 
Manufacturing  and  Agriculture,”  cited, 
21,  23,  56,  62;  “In  Re  That  Aggressive 
Slavocracy,”  cited,  31,  39,  47,  127,  141, 
342;  “The  Secession  and  Co-Operation 
Movements  in  South  Carolina,”  cited,  253. 

Bradford,  Gamaliel,  Confederate  Portraits, 
cited,  115. 

Brawley,  Benjamin,  views  slavery  as  inci¬ 
dental  to  race  equation,  42  n.;  A  Social 
History  of  the  Americayx  Negro,  cited, 
42,  242. 

Brenner,  German  musician,  begins  piano 
making  in  Georgia,  88n. 

Brooks,  James,  New  York  congressman,  de¬ 
clares  Georgia  saved  Union,  338  f. 

Brooks,  R.  P.,  The  Agrarian  Revolution  in 
Georgia,  cited,  11,  69;  History  of  Georgia, 
cited,  312;  “Howell  Cobb  and  the  Crisis 
of  1850,”  cited,  312,  352;  “A  Local  Study 
of  the  Race  Problem,”  cited,  14. 

Brown,  Joseph  E.,  Ill  n.,  227. 

Buchanan,  James,  188,  235  n.;  Works,  cited, 
235  n. 

Buck,  P.  H.,  “Poor  Whites  of  the  Old 
South,”  cited,  75. 

Bulloch  County,  174,  320. 

Burke  County,  only  one  in  state  to  support 
“non-intercourse”  ticket,  1850,  317,  321. 

Burke,  Emily,  Reminiscences,  cited,  68  f., 
75. 

Butler,  J.  C.,  Historical  Records  of  Macon, 
cited,  286. 

Cairnes,  J.  E.,  The  Slave  Power,  cited,  77. 

Calhoun,  John  C.,  95  f.,  103,  108,  128,  149, 
158,  164  f.,  184,  188  f.,  191,  195,  204  f., 
222;  his  theory  of  sovereignty  attacked  by 


Arnold,  97;  quarrel  with  Troup,  99;  joins 
Whigs,  101;  returns  to  Democracy,  101  f.; 
opposes  Bluffton  Movement,  128;  intro¬ 
duces  “Southern  Platform,”  1847,  137; 
inaugurates  “Southern  Movement,”  139; 
hopes  for  Georgia,  139;  unpopular  with 
Georgia  Democrats,  1847,  141,  150;  appeal 
to  Georgia  Whigs  ignored,  142  f. ;  appeals 
to  Georgia  Democrats,  146  f. ;  warned  of 
Georgia  conservatism,  146-148;  advice 
secretly  requested  for  Georgia  legislature, 
1847,  148;  1849,  215  f.;  declares  consti¬ 
tution  follows  flag,  157;  and  the  “South¬ 
ern  Caucus,”  182;  “Southern  Address,” 
183;  growing  influence  with  Georgia  edi¬ 
tors,  189;  ridiculed  by  Whigs,  192  f.; 
pessimistic  reports  to,  by  Georgians,  1849, 
206  f. ;  death,  207,  241  f. ;  relation  to 
Jackson  convention,  212  f. ;  last  great 
speech,  241;  reaction  to,  246;  Works, 
cited,  137,  183. 

Calhoun  Correspondence,  cited,  198,  212, 
214. 

Calhoun  Papers,  cited,  141  f.,  148,  150, 
166  f.,  170,  182,  207,  210,  215. 

California,  12,  157,  218,  239,  243  f.,  247, 
252,  272,  283,  313,  327;  status  of  slavery 
in,  158  f.,  181;  gold  discovered,  195; 
population,  195;  Georgia  opinion  of  state¬ 
hood  for,  195  f.,  219  f. ;  Georgia  slavery 
expedition  to,  196  f.;  free  constitution 
adopted  in,  219;  Georgia  Whig  as  agent 
to,  220;  statehood  issue  in  Georgia  As¬ 
sembly,  1849-1850,  223-227,  229  f.;  de¬ 
clared  adapted  to  slavery,  226;  and  Clay 
Compromise,  240-242,  295  f. ;  California 
bill  passes,  296;  Georgia  governor  there¬ 
fore  calls  state  convention,  295  f. 

Camden  County,  326;  southern-rights  Asso¬ 
ciation  in,  276  n. 

Campbell,  L.  D.,  Kansas  and  Nebraska, 
cited,  28. 

Capers,  Bishop,  warns  South  Carolina 
secession  will  deliver  trade  to  Savannah, 
61,  306. 

Carroll,  M.  C.,  Origins  of  the  Whig  Party, 
cited,  102,  162. 

Cass,  Lewis,  165;  runs  for  president,  166  ff. ; 
vote  for,  in  Georgia,  175  f. ;  praises  Geor¬ 
gia,  1850,  339. 

Cass  County,  Union  meeting  in,  249. 

Cassville  Standard,  259. 

Census  of  1850,  cited,  13,  26,  65. 

Central  Georgia,  12  f.,  51,  191,  307;  limits, 
10;  fertility,  11;  early  settlement  of,  11; 
attitude  towards  slavery  in,  69  f.;  Demo¬ 
cratic  belt  across,  92,  249,  307,  320;  old 
Clark-LTnion  party  in,  91  f.,  100;  Troup 
State-Rights  party  in,  91,  100,  109;  state- 
rights  element  in  Democratic  belt,  105; 
third,  seventh,  and  eighth  districts  in, 
usually  Whig,  171;  reaction  in,  to  Con¬ 
gress  of  1849,  190  f. ;  failure  of  extremist 
meeting  in,  1850,  248  f. ;  little  secession 
spirit  in,  winter,  1850,  253;  Nashville 
election,  county  votes  in,  258  n.;  press  of, 
unrepresentative,  1850,  279. 

Chambers,  W.,  American  Slavery  and  Color, 
cited,  44  f. 

Channing,  E.,  History  of  the  United  States, 
cited,  24. 

Chappell,  A.  H.,  on  Democratic  demoraliza¬ 
tion,  1850,  280;  appeal  for  Union,  281  f. 


INDEX 


393 


Charleston  (S.  C.),  95,  139,  203,  303;  riv- 
airy  with  Savannah  for  interior  trade, 
14  f.,  17,  56-61,  305  f. ;  railroad  connec¬ 
tions,  16  ff. ;  banking  in,  19  f. ;  disease 
conditions  in,  59  n. 

Charleston  Courier,  opposes  Bluffton  Move¬ 
ment,  128. 

Charleston  Mercury,  259  f.;  supports  Bluff- 
ton  Movement,  128;  leads  Georgians  to 
suspect  Carolina  secession  leadership,  304. 

Charleston  News,  297 ;  deplores  rivalry  with 
Georgia,  60  f. 

Chattanooga,  railroad  connections  with,  17. 

Chatham  County,  see  Savannah. 

‘‘Chatham  Platform,”  327;  principles  of, 
314;  probable  basis  of  “Georgia  Plat¬ 
form,”  315;  becomes  program  of  both 
parties  in  state  convention  campaign, 
1850,  315;  and  “Tennessee  Resolutions,” 
324  f. 

Cherokee  Georgia,  see  Upper  Georgia. 

Cheves,  Langdon,  98,  324. 

Christy,  D.,  Cotton  is  King,  cited,  95. 

Civil  war,  40,  43,  272;  danger  of,  discussed, 
1850,  288  f. ;  and  relations  between  South 
Carolina  and  Georgia,  340. 

Clark,  John,  123;  and  Clark  Party,  91  f . ; 
Considerations  on  the  Principles  of  Wil¬ 
liam  H.  Crawford,  cited,  91. 

Clark  Party,  origins  of,  91;  distribution  of, 
91  f . ;  becomes  “Clark-Union”  party,  93; 
attitude  towards  Indian  question,  93;  to¬ 
wards  Nullification,  99. 

Clark,  V.  S.,  History  of  Manufactures, 
cited,  26. 

“Clay-Eaters,”  see  Poor  Whites. 

Clay,  Henry,  101  ff.,  193  f.,  210,  246,  248, 
274,  276,  278,  281,  283,  309,  324,  347; 
in  election  of  1844,  129  f.;  supported  by 
Georgia  state-rights  Whigs  for  president, 
1848,  160-162;  his  Compromise  introduced, 
1850,  240-242,  southern  reaction  to,  246  f . ; 
debate  on,  continues,  266;  attitude  of 
Georgia  delegation  towards  Compromise, 
240  f.,  267-269;  Georgia  Democratic 

press  condemns,  274;  Compromise  passes, 
295  f.;  declared  unsatisfactory  and  “last 
concession”  by  Georgia  Unionists,  314  f. ; 
accepted  by  state  convention,  330;  de¬ 
clares  Georgia  Union  victory  prevented 
civil  war,  339;  Southern-rights  party  con¬ 
demns  Compromise,  1851,  352,  352  n. 

Clayton  Compromise,  164,  169  f.,  172;  intro¬ 
duced,  157  f. ;  supported  by  all  Georgia 
congressmen  save  Stephens,  158  f. ; 
causes  friction  between  Stephens  and 
Berrien,  169  f.,  199;  issue  in  state  cam¬ 
paign,  1849,  200  f. 

Cluskey,  M.  W.,  Political  Text  Book,  cited, 
272. 

Coastal  Georgia,  174,  248,  287;  description 
of,  10;  Troup  State-Rights  party  in,  91, 
100,  109;  old  aristocracy  of,  100;  relation 
to  Central  Georgia,  100;  included  in  first 
district,  usually  Whig,  171;  southern- 
rights  meetings  in,  1850,  248,  283-286; 
relatively  large  vote  for  delegates  to 
Nashville,  258,  258  n.;  unrepresented  at 
Nashville,  264  f. ;  conservatism  of,  1850, 
281 

Cobb,'  Howell,  66,  111  n.,  123,  130,  133, 
136,  146,  155,  176,  189,  192,  195,  236, 
237,  250,  252,  267,  278,  280,  285,  307, 
311,  341,  349,  359  n. ;  democratic  planter, 
112;  influence  in  Upper  Georgia,  124; 
supports  slavery  extension,  130,  136;  con¬ 
fidence  in  northern  Democracy,  1847,  140; 


leader  of  Union  Democrats,  140;  in 
“Southern  Caucus,”  182  f.;  his  “Minority 
Address,”  184;  supported  in  Upper  Geor¬ 
gia,  188;  prevents  state  convention  from 
adopting  “Southern  Address,”  1849,  198; 
elected  speaker  national  House,  238  f. ; 
supports  Compromise,  240;  believes  north¬ 
ern  “Union  Meetings”  most  reassuring  to 
South,  246  n.;  addresses  constituents, 

1850,  282;  predicts  large  Union  majority, 

299  f. ;  his  return  not  primary  influence 
on  public  opinion,  311  f . ;  indifferent  to 
national  Union  party,  346  f.;  Union 

nominee  for  governor,  1851,  351;  troubled 
by  “right  of  secession”  issue,  352  f.; 
elected,  354;  predicts  happy  relations  with 
Union,  1853,  362  f.;  Message  of  Gov¬ 
ernor,  to  the  Legislature,  1853,  cited,  363. 

Cobb,  Howell,  et  al.  To  Our  Constituents, 
cited,  184. 

Cole,  A.  C.,  “Inscribed  Stones  in  the  Wash¬ 
ington  Monument,”  cited,  334;  “The 
South  and  the  Right  of  Secession,”  cited, 
329,  352;  The  Whig  Party  in  the  South, 
cited,  102  f.,  110,  133,  156,  160,  183,  253, 
258,  264,  266,  312,  354. 

Coleman,  C.,  Crittenden,  cited,  237. 

Collins,  Robert,  saves  editor  of  Macon 
Citizen  from  lynching,  1850,  295;  slaves 
of,  escape  to  Boston,  313;  his  agents 
threatened  there,  313;  Fillmore’s  letter  to, 
promising  enforcement  of  fugitive  law, 
314. 

Collins,  W.  H.,  The  Domestic  Slave  Trade, 
cited,  13. 

Colquitt,  W.  F.,  108,  111  n.,  237  n.,  269; 
leads  State-Rights  Whigs  into  Democracy, 
104;  senator,  105;  planter-aristocrat,  112; 
demands  Texan  annexation,  130;  and 
slavery  extension,  136;  resigns  from  Sen¬ 
ate,  155;  leader  of  delegation  to  Nash¬ 
ville,  265;  advises  South  to  prepare  for 
war,  272;  in  summer  debates,  1850,  275. 

Colquitt,  W.  F.,  Circular  to  the  State 
Rights  Party  of  Georgia,  cited,  104. 

Columbia  South  Carolinian,  203;  ascribes 
Georgia  conservatism  to  prosperity,  52, 
290  f.;  hopes  for  Georgia,  219,  297. 

Columbus  (Ga.),  14,  116,  118,  120,  179  f., 
189  f.,  215,  312  f.;  railroad  connections, 
18;  pro-Carolina  feeling  in,  18,  307; 

manufacturing  in,  26  f. ;  northerners  in, 
83,  321;  foreigners  in,  and  political  in¬ 
fluence,  88,  89  n.,  321;  state-rights  ele¬ 
ment  in,  105;  vote  for  Nashville  Con¬ 
vention  delegates,  257  f. ;  southern-rights 
barbecue  in,  1850,  276  f. ;  Union  meeting 
in,  282  f. ;  carried  by  Unionists,  321. 

Columbus  Enquirer,  118,  282. 

Columbus  Sentinel,  116  n.,  300;  attacks 
Union,  120;  unrepresentative  character  of, 
120;  openly  avows  secession,  287,  310; 
declares  conflict  with  North  inevitable, 

1851,  344  f. 

Columbus  Times,  116  n.,  117;  South  Caro¬ 
lina  editor  of,  84;  poetic  satire  of  Taylor, 
169;  joins  southern  movement,  180; 
urges  slavery  expeditions  to  California, 
197;  alone  prefers  state  convention  to 
Nashville  Convention,  255  f. ;  declares 
Union  will  be  dissolved,  298;  demands 
secession  and  preparation  for  war,  1850, 
310;  defiant  after  convention  election, 
322;  condemns  “Platform,”  336. 

“Compromise  of  1850,”  see  Clay. 

Cone,  F.  H.,  delegate  to  Baltimore,  165; 
assaults  Stephens,  172,  173. 


394 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Congressional  Districts,  see  Map  No.  6, 
171;  92,  170  f.,  174;  gerrymander  in 
Central  Georgia,  174,  235  n.;  struggle 
over,  in  Assembly,  1850,  235  f.;  special 
election  in  first,  1850,  252  f. ;  southern- 
rights  feeling  in  first,  252-254;  feeling  in, 
eve  of  state  convention  campaign,  306  f. 

Congressional  Globe,  cited,  130,  132,  134  flf. , 
155,  157,  159,  164,  181,  185,  238  f.,  266. 

Connecticut,  Proviso  resolutions  of,  1847, 
152;  new  Proviso  resolutions  sent  to 
Georgia,  227  f. ;  Georgia  governor’s  mes¬ 
sage  on,  228. 

Conrad,  Georgia  B.,  Reminiscences,  cited,  10. 

Cooper,  Thomas,  33. 

Coryell  MSS,  cited,  347. 

Cotterill,  R.  S.,  “Southern  Railroads  and 
Western  Trade,  1840-1850,”  cited,  17. 

Cotton,  14,  26  f.,  75;  “cotton  rush”  across 
Georgia,  12  f.;  rise  and  fall  in  price  of, 
20-22;  relation  to  manufacturing  in  South, 
23;  relation  to  slavery  extension,  47; 
high  prices  produce  pro-Union  feeling, 
1850,  52,  289-291. 

Cotton  Belt,  see  Central  Georgia. 

Coulter,  E.  M.,  “A  Georgia  Educational 
Movement  During  the  Eighteen  Hundred 
Fifties,”  cited,  24;  “The  Nullification 
Movement  in  Georgia,”  cited,  58,  95,  97. 

Clinch,  D.  L.,  runs  for  governor,  1847,  116, 
143-145. 

“Cracker,”  see  also  Farmers,  “Poor 
Whites”;  meaning  of  term,  74;  form 
“corn-cracker”  used.  111. 

Crawford,  G.  W.,  160,  204;  governor,  116, 
124,  144  n.;  administration  praised,  144  f. ; 
and  “Galphin  Scandal,”  266  n. 

Crawford,  William  H.,  91,  96,  123. 

Crittenden  MSS,  cited,  237  f. 

Cuyler,  of  Savannah,  draws  up  “Chatham 
Platform,”  314  f.;  in  state  convention, 
325. 

Dabney,  R.  L.,  views  slavery  question  as  a 
race  question,  42;  Defense  of  Virginia, 
cited,  42. 

Dahlonega,  Slavocracy  attacked  in,  250. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  on  planters’  conservatism, 
67  n. ;  for  slavery  in  Oregon,  157. 

Davis,  Jefferson,  A  Memoir  by  His  Wife, 
cited,  44,  268. 

Dawson,  Andrew  H.,  Democratic  delegate 
to  Nashville,  265  n.,  270;  plan  for 

“southern-rights”  associations,”  275  f. 

Dawson,  W.  C.,  144,  239;  replaces  Johnson 
in  Senate,  237  n. ;  supports  Compromise, 
267;  in  state  convention,  325;  on  “Georgia 
Platform,”  338;  leads  conservative  Whigs 
for  Scot,  1852,  361. 

De  Bow,  J.  D.  B.,  Economic  Resources  of 
the  Southern  and  Western  States,  cited, 
10  f.,  75;  Interest  in  Slavery  of  the  Non- 
Slaveholder,  cited,  65,  69  f. 

De  Bo7u's  Review,  cited,  20,  28  f.,  39,  55  f., 
59.  75.  81. 

De  Cassagnac,  A.  G.,  History  of  the  Work¬ 
ing  and  Burgher  Classes,  preface  to,  by 
B.  S.  Green,  cited,  78. 

De  Kalb  County,  10. 

Democratic  Party,  see  also  Clark  party, 
Political  parties;  156,  164,  167,  173,  182, 
190,  192  f.,  195  f.,  206  f.;  controlled  by 
planters  and  associates,  66,  111  f.;  orig¬ 
ins  in  old  Union  party,  100  f.;  joined  by 
state-rights  Whigs,  101,  103  f.,  194;  com¬ 
position  after  1840,  105-107,  109-112;  re¬ 
verses  constitutional  position,  107-109; 


party  of  the  uneducated  and  poor,  111, 
118;  attitude  towards  democracy,  112-116; 
journals,  116-118;  growing  economic  con¬ 
servatism,  126  n.,  217  f.,  218  n.;  demands 
Texan  annexation,  129-131;  Georgia 
Democrats  demand  extension,  136,  138; 
supports  Mexican  War,  131,  138,  142, 
152-154;  suggests  extension  of  Missouri 
line  to  Pacific,  1847,  139,  141,  153;  Geor¬ 
gia  state  convention,  1847,  140-142;  fric¬ 
tion  between  Union  and  southern-rights 
factions,  105-107,  109,  115  f.,  140  f.,  164, 
197  ff.,  204  f.,  234  ff.,  278  f . ;  attacks 
Whigs  on  Proviso  issue,  1847,  144  f. ; 
majority  of,  oppose  Southern  movement, 
1847,  146-151;  elects  Towns  governor, 

151;  factions  hold  together,  1848,  164- 
166;  campaign  tactics,  167-170;  slight 
majority  in  congressional  election,  173- 
175;  loses  presidential  election,  175-177; 
voters  show  independence  of  leaders,  176; 
emphasizes  southern-rights  after  election 
of  1848,  178-180;  in  “Southern  Caucus,” 
182  f. ;  encourages  Whig  factionalism, 
195;  state  convention,  1849,  198;  ridi¬ 
culed  by  Whigs,  198  f. ;  campaign  tactics, 
198-201,  205,  207  f . ;  reelects  Towns,  208- 
211;  wins  legislature,  209,  217;  gains  in 
southern-rights  sentiment  in,  211  f. ; 
majority  ignores  Nashville  Convention 
elections,  257  f. ;  press  interpretations  of 
elections,  259-262;  divided  into  Union  and 
extremist  groups,  1850,  286  ff. ;  voters 
fail  to  support  latter  for  state  conven¬ 
tion,  319-323;  Union  Democrats  join 
Union  party,  334  f . ;  majority  rump  be¬ 
comes  southern-rights  party,  335;  net 
effect  of  1850  campaign  on,  343;  divided 
in  Georgia  campaign  of  1851,  354;  only 
national  party  Georgians  could  support, 

1852,  357  f. ;  two  Pierce  tickets  in  state 
party,  360  f.;  state  factions  reunited, 

1853,  362;  elects  Johnson  governor,  362. 

Dewey,  D.  R.,  “Banking  in  the  South,” 

cited,  19. 

“Direct  Trade,”  conventions  for,  16;  Sen¬ 
ator  Berrien  favors,  1850,  316. 

District  of  Columbia,  49,  181,  184,  213,  232, 
269,  272,  282,  297;  effort  to  abolish  slav¬ 
ery  in,  164,  181,  223;  effort  to  abolish 
slave  trade  in,  181;  item  in  “Georgia 
Platform,”  331;  debate  on  slavery  in, 
Georgia  convention,  333. 

Dodd,  W.,  The  Cotton  Kingdom,  cited,  32, 
37;  Expansion  and  Conflict,  cited,  154. 

Domestic  Slave  Trade,  13;  debated  in  Geor¬ 
gia  Assembly,  1850,  232  f. 

“Dorrism,”  202;  supported  by  Georgia 
Democrats,  114. 

Du  Bois,  W.  E.  B.,  The  Suppression  of  the 
African  Slave  Trade,  cited,  13. 

Du  Bose,  J.  W.,  W.  L.  Yancey,  cited,  341. 

Dunway,  C.  A.,  “Slavery  in  California,” 
cited,  197. 

Economic  interpretation,  of  Georgia’s  con¬ 
servatism,  1850,  22,  26-29,  51-55,  289- 
291,  291  n. 

Education,  see  also  Illiteracy;  lack  of,  in 
Georgia,  24  n.;  northern  teachers  in  state, 
81  f. 

Election  of  1840,  Whig  victory  in  Georgia, 
104. 

Election  of  1843  (state),  Whig  victory  in 
Georgia,  104. 

Election  of  1844,  Democratic  victory  in 
Georgia,  130. 


INDEX 


395 


Election  of  1845  (state),  Whig  victory  in 
Georgia,  104. 

Election  of  1847  (state),  125;  results  in 
election  of  Towns  and  a  balanced  Assem¬ 
bly,  151  f. 

Election  of  1848,  252;  presidential  nomina¬ 
tions,  160-166;  campaign  tactics  in  Geor¬ 
gia,  167;  campaign  preceding,  167-170; 
affected  by  Cones’  assault  upon  Stephens, 
173;  Georgia  congressional  election  re¬ 
sults,  173-175;  presidential  results,  175  f. ; 
national  results,  176  f. ;  effect  upon  party 
attitudes  in  Georgia,  178  f. 

Election  of  1849  (state),  nominations, 
198  f.;  campaign  tactics,  198-201,  205, 
207  f. ;  Proviso  issue  in,  200  f . ;  “right  of 
secession,”  issue  in,  201,  203;  factional 
friction  in,  203-205;  personalities  in,  205; 
importance  of,  to  southern  movement, 
206;  Towns  elected,  208;  Democrats  win 
legislature,  209;  results  analyzed,  208-211; 
effects  of,  211  f. ;  viewed  as  giving  south¬ 
ern-rights  mandate  to  Towns,  218;  tactics 
of,  revived  by  Democrats,  1851,  350  f. 

Election  of  1850  (state  convention),  106; 
governor  calls  convention,  295-298;  cam¬ 
paign  preceding,  303-319;  secession  appeal 
abandoned,  310-312;  election  results,  319- 
321;  reactions  to,  321-323;  issues  of, 
abandoned  by  southern-rights  party,  1851, 
350  f. 

Election  of  1851  (state),  106;  nominations, 
350  f.;  southern-rights  tactics,  350  f . ; 
Union  party  tactics,  352  f. ;  “right  of 
secession”  issue  in,  350  ff. ;  Bank  and 
tariff  declared  dead  issues  in,  351  n.; 
secession  issue  in,  351-354;  economic  ap¬ 
peal  in,  for  Union,  354,  354  n. ;  results 
in  Union  victory,  354;  Union  victories  in 
Alabama  and  Mississippi,  355;  lasting  in¬ 
fluence  of  southern-rights  efforts  in,  356; 
foreordains  end  of  Union  party,  356. 

Election  of  1852,  causes  disintegration  of 
Union  party,  357  f.,  360  f. ;  divided  tick¬ 
ets  in  both  Georgia  parties,  361;  results, 
361  f.;  secessionist  ticket  a  failure,  361  f. 

Election  of  1853  (state).  Democratic  fac¬ 
tions  reunited  in,  362;  elect  Johnson  gov¬ 
ernor,  362. 

England,  32,  175;  cotton  demand  in,  21  n., 
22;  immigrants  from,  88. 

“Empire  State,”  see  Georgia. 

“Era  of  Good  Feeling,”  90. 

Eubank,  T.,  Inorganic  Forces  Affecting 
Slavery ,  cited,  36. 

Eve,  saves  Stephen’s  life,  172. 

Extremists,  see  Southern-rights  Democrats. 

Farmers,  92,  133;  numbers  in  1850,  65;  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  “planters,”  64  f.;  dis¬ 
tribution  of,  67;  characteristics,  68; 
dominate  Upper  Georgia,  67;  political 
education  of,  68;  as  slaveholders,  68  f. ; 
attitude  towards  Negroes  and  slavery, 
69-72. 

“Father”  Ritchie,  125. 

Federal  Government,  see  Union,  The;  95, 
97 ;  and  abolitionists,  47 ;  blamed  for  eco¬ 
nomic  depression,  51  f. ;  opposed  by  Geor¬ 
gia  in  Indian  controversy,  93;  sovereignty 
of,  asserted  in  Georgia,  201  f. ;  peaceful 
relations  with,  predicted  by  Governor 
Cobb,  1853,  362  f. 

Federalist  Party,  90,  114  n.,  138  f. 

Fillmore,  Millard,  vice-presidential  nomi¬ 
nee,  167;  denounced  by  Democrats,  200; 
becomes  president,  267 ;  influence  helps 


compromise,  267;  his  “Collins  Letter” 
assures  Georgia  fugitive  slave  law  will  be 
observed,  314. 

“Fire-eaters,”  see  Southern-rights  Demo¬ 
crats. 

Fisher,  Sidney  G.,  views  slavery  question  as 
a  race  question,  41  f. 

Fisher,  Sidney  G.,  Laws  of  Race  as  Con¬ 
nected  with  Slavery,  remarkable  essay, 
cited,  42. 

Fitzhugh,  G.,  Cannibals  All,  cited,  33;  ex¬ 
treme  proslavery  views  of,  45. 

Flisch,  J.  A.,  “The  State  Finances  of  Geor¬ 
gia,”  cited,  19. 

Florida,  71,  155,  302. 

Flournoy,  R.  W.,  editor  Federal  Union, 
204;  attacks  Union  Democrats,  204  f. 

Foote,  H.  S.,  316  n.,  347. 

Forney,  J.  W.,  278  n.,  359  n. 

Forsyth  Bee,  deplores  failure  of  Monroe  ex¬ 
tremist  meeting,  249. 

Forsyth  County,  261. 

Forsyth,  John,  of  Columbus  Times,  179. 

Foster,  H.  D.,  “Webster’s  Seventh  of 
March  Speech,”  cited,  190,  241,  262,  312; 
on  danger  of  secession  in  Georgia,  1850, 
262  n. 

Fouche,  Simpson,  277,  297;  delegate  to 
Nashville,  265  n.;  resolutions  at  Nash¬ 
ville,  271. 

Free-Labor  British  Colonies,  The  Case  of, 
cited,  41. 

Free-Negroes,  numbers  negligible  in  Geor¬ 
gia,  14  n.;  character  of,  41;  debate  on,  in 
Assembly,  1850,  233  f. 

Free-N egroism,  cited,  41. 

Free  Soil  Party,  168,  198  n. ;  origins  of, 
163;  nominates  Van  Buren,  163;  in  elec¬ 
tion  of  1848,  176  f. ;  holds  balance  of 
power  in  House,  1850,  237. 

Fugitive  Slave  Law,  187,  223,  272;  flouted 
in  Boston,  313;  Macon  Journal  declares 
compromise  depends  upon  observance  of, 
313  f . ;  “Georgia  Platform,”  declares  pre¬ 
servation  of  Union  depends  upon,  332. 

“Galphin  Scandal,”  266,  266  n. 

Gardner,  J.  R.,  editor,  Augusta  Constitu¬ 
tionalist,  141;  opposes  Calhoun,  1847,  141. 

Garrison,  W.  L.,  welcomes  Toombs’  threats, 
242. 

Gartrell,  222,  225;  radical  Whig  leader  in 
Assembly,  221  ff. ;  in  Missouri  line  debate, 
226. 

Georgia,  State  of,  49,  72,  151  f.,  164,  166  f., 
182,  186,  204;  chief  sections,  9-11;  white 
and  Negro  population  in,  1850,  13;  leads  in 
plans  to  improve  South,  15-16;  early  rail¬ 
road  development  in,  16-18;  trade  rivalry 
with  South  Carolina,  17,  56-61,  305  f.; 
early  banking  in,  18-20;  state  debt, 
19  f. ;  excellent  credit,  20,  27,  290; 

financial  rivalry  with  South  Carolina,  20, 
58,  305  f.;  new  lands  in,  1850,  21,  289; 
agricultural  reform,  21;  prosperity  and 
business  optimism,  22,  26-29,  54  f.,  289 
f.;  rapid  increase  in  cotton  manufacturing 
in,  1845-1850,  25-27,  289;  little  economic 
interest  in  slavery  extension,  47;  political 
interest  in  extension,  47;  need  of  Negro 
population,  48  f . ;  supports  Union  because 
of  prosperity,  51-53,  289-291,  291  n.,  339, 
339  n.,  354,  354  n.;  economic  contrast 
with  South  Carolina,  53-57;  feeling  be¬ 
tween  South  Carolina  and,  57-63,  96,  98, 
129,  192  f.,  213  n.,  304-3p6,  319,  327; 
northern  and  southern  praise  of,  62  f., 


396 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


303,  339;  social  groups  in,  and  their  at¬ 
titude  towards  Negroes  and  slavery,  64- 
89;  South  Carolinians  in,  and  their  influ¬ 
ence,  79;  northerners  in,  and  their  in¬ 
fluence,  79-85;  feeling  in,  towards  North¬ 
erners,  85-88,  294;  German  and  Irish 
immigrants  in,  88  f. ;  political  influence 
of  immigrants  in,  89;  origin  of  parties  in, 
90  f.;  early  party  history,  93,  99-116; 
Nullification  movement  in,  94-98;  attach¬ 
ment  to  Union  in,  96-98,  151,  268,  273, 
281  f.,  293,  293  n.,  326,  333;  party  press 
in,  116-118;  general  political  conditions 
in,  119-125;  forces  influencing  public 
opinion  in,  120-123;  even  balance  of  par¬ 
ties  in,  110,  122;  party  leaders  in,  122  f. ; 
political  organization  in,  124  f.;  Bluffton 
Movement  in,  128  f.;  Democratic  Con¬ 
vention,  1847,  140-142;  Whig  Convention, 
1847,  142-144;  Longstreet’s  defence  of, 
149;  united  against  Proviso,  153,  245;  and 
alignments  in  congressional  districts, 
170  f. ;  reaction  in,  to  election  of  1848, 
178-180;  to  Congress  of  1848-1849,  187- 
194;  sectionalism  in,  true  of  Democracy, 
but  not  Whiggerv,  196;  opinion  in,  of 
California  and  New  Mexico,  195-196; 
campaign  of  1849  in,  198-212;  parties  in 
Assembly,  217;  governor’s  messages, 
217-219,  227  f.;  Assembly  of  1849-1850, 
217-236;  first  signs  of  new  parties  in, 
235  f . ;  delegation  in  Congress,  1850,  237; 
activities  of,  237-241,  266-269;  Georgia 
reaction  to  Clay  compromise,  246  f.;  to 
northern  Union  meetings,  246  f.;  public 
opinion,  winter  of  1850,  247-254,  260- 
263;  Nashville  Convention  elections  in, 
256-262;  delegation  to  Nashville,  264- 
271;  secessionist  efforts,  summer  1850, 
275-277,  283-286;  conservative  spirit  in, 
277-281;  Union  propaganda,  281-283; 
governor  calls  convention,  296-298;  gov¬ 
ernor  reports  state  not  ready  to  secede, 
300;  South  Carolina  governor  promises  to 
“conciliate,”  301;  blocks  Carolina’s  seces¬ 
sion  plans,  302,  322  f.,  340;  becomes 
critical  center  of  secession  movement, 
303,  306;  state  convention  campaign  in, 
1850,  303-319;  elections  to,  319-323; 

delegation  in  second  session,  Nashville 
Convention,  323-325;  state  convention, 
1850,  325-334;  Union  and  southern- 

rights  parties  formed,  334  f. ;  party  situ¬ 
ation,  1851,  343-348;  “manufactures  speak 
louder  than  cannons’  roar,”  349  n. ;  cam¬ 
paign  of  1851  in,  348-354;  Union  party 
victory,  354;  campaign  of  1852  breaks 
up  Union  party,  356-361;  Southern-rights 
Pierce  ticket  carries,  360;  Democracy  re¬ 
united  in,  1853,  362;  Democrats  elect 
Johnson  governor,  1853,  362;  Governor 
Cobb  predicts  happy  future  for  state, 
1853,  362  f. 

Georgia,  Acts  of,  cited,  228. 

Georgia  Central  Railroad,  16;  effort  to  di¬ 
vert  traffic  from,  to  Charleston,  60,  305. 

Georgia,  Convention  of  the  State  of,  1833, 
Journal  of,  cited,  112. 

Georgia,  Convention  to  Equalize  the  Repre¬ 
sentation  of  the  General  Assembly  of, 
1839,  Journal  of,  cited,  112. 

Georgia  Convention  of  1850,  344;  governor 
urges  convention,  1849,  218;  convention 
resolution  and  bill  in  Assembly,  220-230, 
232;  prospect  of,  noted  in  national  Sen¬ 
ate,  240;  governor  calls  convention,  1850, 
295  f. ;  reaction  to  call,  296-298;  cam¬ 


paign  preceding  elections  to,  303-319; 
elections  to,  319-323;  membership  of, 
325  f. ;  fervent  Union  appeals  in,  326  f., 

333  f. ;  extremists  lack  proportional  repre¬ 
sentation  in,  327,  327  n.;  extremist  efforts 
in,  327-329,  332-334;  accepts  Compromise, 
330;  warns  North  against  further  aggres¬ 
sions,  330-332;  debate  on  slavery  in  D. 
C.,  333;  Union  party  finally  organized  in, 

334  f. ;  Georgia  reaction  to,  336  f. ;  esti¬ 
mates  of  its  influence  on  South  and  the 
Union,  336-342. 

Georgia  Convention  of  1850,  Proceedings  of, 
cited,  40,  218,  296,  326,  328,  330  ff. 

Georgia  Convention  of  1850,  Journal  of, 
cited,  330. 

Georgia,  House  Journals,  cited,  209,  217  f., 
220  ff.,  227,  229  ff.,  235. 

Georgia  Legislature,  abolition  of  Senate  de¬ 
sired  by  Democrats,  113;  not  dominated 
by  national  senators,  124;  Whigs  win 
slight  majority  in,  1847,  151  f. ;  Proviso 
and  Mexican  War  issues  in,  152-154; 
declares  North  threatens  Union,  152;  de¬ 
clares  Georgia  united  against  Proviso, 
153;  Democrats  win  control  of,  1849, 
209;  Calhouns  relation  to,  215  f.;  com¬ 
position,  December,  1849,  217;  governor’s 
message  urges  state  convention,  218; 
“Georgia  Resolutions”  introduced,  220j 
ninth  threatens  secession,  220,  228,  232; 
eighth  (convention)  resolution,  debated, 
220-228;  adopted,  228,  232;  convention 
bill  passes,  229  f.,  232;  California  state¬ 
hood  clauses  protested  by  Whigs,  229  f. ; 
text  of  convention  bill,  230;  Nashville 
convention  measure  in,  230-232;  authorizes 
inter-state  slave  trade,  232  f. ;  defeats 
bills  against  North,  232.  243  f. ;  and 
against  free-Negroes,  232-234;  gerry¬ 
mander  struggle  in,  235  f.;  northern  criti¬ 
cism  of,  243  f. ;  attitude  of  Georgia 
press  towards,  244,  251;  unrepresentative 
character  of,  1850,  262  f.;  Union  party 
majority  in,  1851,  354;  Union  party  holds 
together  in,  1852,  358. 

Georgia,  Letter  Books  of  Governors,  cited, 
218,  296. 

“Georgia  Platform,”  344;  probably  based  on 
“Chatham  Platform,”  315;  authorship, 
329;  in  state  convention,  329-333;  accepted 
by  all  but  secessionists,  in  Georgia,  336  f., 
344,  356;  praise  of,  337-339;  general 

adoption  in  South,  337-341;  its  influence 
estimated,  341  f. ;  McDonald  not  clear 
upon,  352. 

Georgia  Railroad,  16. 

“Georgia  Resolutions”  of  1850,  introduced, 
1849,  220;  ninth  resolution  threatens  sec¬ 
ession,  220;  adopted,  228;  eighth  (con¬ 
vention)  resolution,  220;  California  clause 
added  to,  222;  text  of,  224;  Whig  motion 
to  delay  lost,  224;  Missouri  line  amend¬ 
ment  to,  debated,  224-227 ;  amendment  de¬ 
feated,  227;  resolution  adopted,  228,  248; 
Lawton’s  preamble  and  solidarity  reso¬ 
lution  defeated,  222;  first  seven  adopted, 
224. 

Georgia,  Senate  Journals,  cited,  209,  220  ff., 
230-232,  234. 

Germans,  immigrants  in  Georgia.  88  f.;  as 
Unionists  in  Savannah,  1850,  309. 

Gerrymander,  see  Congressional  Districts. 

Giddings,  J.  R.,  abolitionist  congressman, 
181;  History  of  the  Rebellion,  cited,  181, 
237  f. 


INDEX 


397 


Glynn  County,  “Marshes  of,”  10;  large 
Negro  population  of,  map  No.  2,  14; 
meetings  in,  248. 

Going,  C.  B.,  David  Wilmot,  cited,  132. 

Gregg,  William,  23,  23  n.,  56. 

Griffin,  Whig,  259. 

Guetter,  F.  J.,  and  McKinley,  A.  E., 
Statistical  Tables,  cited,  22. 

Gulf  states,  9,  13,  53,  139,  297. 

Hackett,  T.  C.,  Union  Democratic  repre¬ 
sentative,  171,  237,  240,  267,  307. 

Hamburg  (S.  C.),  railroad  connections,  16. 

Hamer,  Phillip,  The  Secession  Movement  in 
South  Carolina,  cited,  133,  138  f.,  181, 
185,  212,  214,  275. 

Hamilton,  General  James,  ascribes  Geor¬ 
gia’s  conservatism  to  economic  prosperity, 
51  f.,  290  f.;  warns  South  Carolina 

secession  will  deliver  trade  to  Savannah, 
61,  306;  on  feeling  between  Georgia  and 
South  Carolina,  98. 

Hammond,  J.  H.,  271,  274,  286,  303;  warns 
South  Carolina  of  economic  decline,  55; 
declares  “poor  whites”  worst  enemies  of 
Negroes,  76;  at  Nashville,  269;  declares 
Georgia  potential  leader  of  South,  297; 
refuses  to  “interfere”  in  Georgia  politics, 
305;  “Address  to  the  South  Carolina  In¬ 
stitute,”  cited,  75. 

Hammond,  M.  B.,  The  Cotton  Industry, 
cited,  77. 

Hammond  MSS,  cited,  67,  76,  297,  302,  305. 

Handy,  R.  B.,.  “History  and  General 

Statistics  of  Cotton,”  cited,  22. 

Haralson,  H.  A.,  Democratic  representative', 
104,  130,  155,  158,  188,  237;  opposes 
Clay  Compromise,  240. 

Harden,  E.  J.,  resolutions  in  Assembly, 
152;  George  M.  Troup,  cited,  265,  324. 

Harper,  The  Pro-Slavery  Argument,  cited, 
32. 

Harper,  R.  M.,  “Development  of  Agriculture 
in  Upper  Georgia,”  cited,  11,  14. 

Harrison,  W.  H.,  101,  103  f. 

Hearon,  Cleo,  Mississippi  and  the  Compro¬ 
mise  of  1850,  cited,  186,  213. 

Helper,  H.  R.,  33,  77  n.;  on  Georgia  non¬ 
slaveholders,  70;  Impending  Crisis,  cited, 
70. 

Herndon,  D.  T..  “The  Nashville  Conven¬ 
tion,”  cited,  232,  265,  269,  325. 

Heydenfeldt,  on  southern  desire  for  eman¬ 
cipation,  36. 

Hill,  Edward  Y.,  207  f. ;  Whig  nominee  for 
governor,  1849,  199;  evades  issues, 

200  f.,  204;  personal  habits  attacked,  205; 
and  “special  privilege,”  205;  defeated, 
208-210. 

History  Teachers ’  Magazine,  cited,  334. 

Hodgson,  J.,  on  effect  of  Taylor’s  death, 
267  n.;  Cradle  of  the  Confederacy,  cited, 
267  n. 

Holsey,  Hopkins,  187  f.,  191,  219;  of 

Athens  Banner,  151;  declares  no  disunion 
party  can  succeed  in  Georgia,  151;  attacks 
Calhounites,  204  f. ;  declares  public  opin¬ 
ion  calm,  September,  1850;  burlesques 
governor’s  convention  proclamation,  318  f. 

Hook-Worm  Disease,  endemic  among  Geor¬ 
gia  “poor  whites,”  75. 

House  of  Representatives  (national),  170  f., 
180,  211,  218,  225,  262,  274;  feeling  m, 
between  Georgia  and  South  Carolina  dele¬ 
gations,  98;  Georgia  members,  1847-48, 
155;  Proviso  problem  and  Clayton  Com¬ 
promise  in,  1848,  155-159;  membership, 


1849,  177;  antislavery  majority  in,  181; 
antislavery  measures  in,  181;  fails  to 
solve  territorial  problem,  1849,  185;  Cal¬ 
houn’s  advice  requested  for  Georgia 
member  of,  215;  suggested  Georgians 
leave,  if  Proviso  passes,  232;  interstate 
slave  trade  advocated,  to  increase  Georgia 
representation  in,  232  f.;  Free-Soilers 

hold  balance  of  power  in,  1850,  237; 
speakership  contest  in,  238;  Cobb  elected 
speaker,  238;  compromise  move  pro 
gresses  in,  241  f.,  266  f. 

Howard,  J.  H.,  requests  Calhoun’s  advice 
for  Georgia  Assembly,  215. 

Howard,  R.  R.,  plans  Georgia  slavery  ex¬ 
pedition  to  California,  196  f. 

Hundley,  D.  R.,  on  barbecues  and  politics 
in  South,  68;  on  importance  of  north¬ 
erners  in  South,  82;  on  their  antislavery 
views,  84  f . ;  Social  Relations  in  Our 
Southern  States,  cited,  33,  68  f.,  75,  81  f., 
85. 

Hunt’s  Merchants’  Magazine,  cited,  20,  22, 
26,  88. 

Illiteracy,  see  also  Education;  extent  of, 
24  n.;  makes  for  mental  inertia,  24;  re¬ 
lation  to  politics,  121;  factor  in  Georgia 
indifference  to  Nashville  Convention  and 
southern  movement,  260  f. 

Immigrants,  see  also  Irish;  29,  281;  num¬ 
bers  and  distribution  in  Georgia,  88,* 
political  influence,  89. 

Incidents  of  a  lourney  from  Abbeville  to 
Ocola,  cited,  83,  122. 

Indians,  95  f.,  99;  leave  Georgia,  12;  ex¬ 
pulsion  controversy,  93. 

Ingle,  Edward,  Southern  Sidelights,  cited, 
16,  23,  37,  59,  118,  121. 

Inquiry  into  the  Condition  and  Prospects  of 
the  African  Race,  cited,  32,  43. 

Irish,  immigrants  in  Georgia,  88  f . ;  political 
influence,  89;  anti-British  appeal  to,  175; 
as  Unionists  in  Savannah,  309. 

Iverson,  Alfred,  155,  158,  183,  188. 

Jackson,  Andrew,  94,  96,  99  ff.,  104. 

Jackson,  James,  91. 

Jackson,  James  W.,  306;  elected  congress¬ 
man  from  first  district,  1850,  252  f. ;  op¬ 
poses  Compromise,  267. 

Jamaica,  A  Statement  of  Facts  in,  cited,  41. 

Jefferson,  Thomas,  202  f. 

Jenkins,  C.  J.,  229,  235,  308;  resolution  on 
southern  convention,  223;  in  Missouri 
line  debate,  226;  plan  to  delay  Nashville 
convention  defeated,  230  f.;  in  state  con¬ 
vention,  235;  reported  author,  “Georgia:. 
Platform,”  329. 

“Jersey  Pineys,”  similarity  to  “Piney- 
Woods  People”  of  Georgia,  overlooked  by 
northern  critics,  77  n. 

Jervey,  I.  D.,  The  Slave  Trade:  Slavery  and 
Color,  cited,  17,  59;  Robert  Y.  Hayne,. 
cited,  54. 

Johnson,  H.  V.,  140,  156  ff.,  188,  237;; 
appointed  senator,  1848,  155;  asks  aid  of 
Calhoun,  166  f.,  170;  campaigns  against 
Stephens,  170;  quarrel  with  Stephens, 
172;  for  “resistance,”  206;  views  “Geor¬ 
gia  Platform”  as  binding,  341;  elected 
governor,  1853,  362;  “From  the  Auto¬ 
biography  of,”  cited,  341. 

Johnston  and  Browne,  Alexander  H.  Steph¬ 
ens,  cited,  103,  135,  159,  160,  164,  173, 
240  f.,  292. 

Jones,  A.  S.,  Speed  the  Plow,  cited,  24. 


398 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Jones,  C.,  Education  in  Georgia,  cited,  24, 
81;  C.  J.  Jenkins,  cited,  235,  329. 

Kemble,  Fannie,  Journal,  cited,  36,  76. 

Kennedy,  J.  C.  G.,  Catalogue  of  Newspapers, 
1850,  cited,  21,  118,  121. 

Kettrell,  T.  P.,  Southern  Wealth  and 
Northern  Profits,  cited,  25  f. 

King,  T.  B.,  155,  158,  171;  leaves  Con¬ 
gress  as  Taylor’s  agent  to  California, 
220,  237  n.;  succeeded  by  J.  W.  Jackson, 
252  f. 

Kirkpatrick,  W.  H.,  “The  Beginning  of 
the  Public  School  System  in  Georgia,” 
cited,  24. 

Knight,  L.  L.,  Famous  Georgians,  cited. 
312. 

Lanman,  C.,  Letters  from  the  Alleghaney 
Mountains,  cited,  80. 

Lamar,  J.  B.,  281,  289;  accuses  old  state- 
rights  Whigs  of  betraying  Union  Demo¬ 
crat  associates,  106  f. 

Laski,  H.  J.,  Authority  in  the  Modern  State, 
cited,  202;  The  Problem  of  Sovereignty, 
cited,  202. 

Laurens  County,  174;  usually  Whig,  92, 
171. 

Lawton,  Alexander  R.,  Judicial  Controver¬ 
sies  on  Federal  Appellate  Jurisdiction, 
cited,  189  f. 

Lawton,  W.  J.,  225,  264;  from  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  148;  suggested  as  Georgia  agent  tor 
Calhoun,  148;  introduces  “Georgia  Reso¬ 
lutions,”  1849,  148,  222;  resolutions  of, 
ignored,  1847,  154,  222;  radical  leader  of 
Assembly,  1849,  221  ff. ;  his  preamble 
and  solidarity  resolution  defeated,  222; 
in  Missouri  line  debate,  226;  extremist 
leader,  state  convention,  1850,  326;  his 
resolutions  in  convention  defeated,  333  f. 

Lawyers,  “Ginger-pop”  type  favor  secession, 
73;  thrive  on  politics,  121;  some  able 
ones  support  secession,  308. 

Uee,  Daniel,  see  also  Augusta  Chronicle ; 
55;  editor  of  Chronicle,  of  northern 
origin,  84;  dismissal  demanded  by  ex¬ 
tremists,  86;  asserts  divisibility  of  sov¬ 
ereignty,  201;  denies  “right  of  secession,” 

201  f . ;  denies  “right  of  revolution,” 

202  f.;  attacked  by  Democrats,  202-204; 
by  state-rights  Whigs,  204;  Stephens 
fails  to  remove,  204  n. ;  wires  Webster’s 
speech,  246. 

Lincoln,  Abraham,  similarity  of  his  “Gettys¬ 
burg  Address”  to  Toombs’  address  of 
1850,  335  n. 

Livingston,  J.,  Law  Register,  1850,  cited, 
118,  121;  “Judge  Nisbet,”  cited,  113. 

Locke,  J.  L.,  editor  of  Republican,  of  north¬ 
ern  origin,  84. 

London  Times,  on  Clay  Compromise,  247. 

Longstreet,  A.  B.,  Georgia  Scenes,  cited,  58, 
68;  criticises  Massachusetts  record  on 
slavery,  148  f.;  appeals  for  southern  unity, 
148  f. 

[Longstreet,  A.  B.],  Letters  from  Georgia 
to  Massachusetts,  cited,  31,  80,  86,  149. 

Lower  South,  9,  32,  127,  201,  283,  296, 
303,  322,  341. 

Lumpkin,  James  H.,  report,  as  Chief  Jus¬ 
tice  of  Georgia,  on  slave  code,  1849,  36  n. 

Lumpkin,  John  H.,  133,  155,  237  n.,  274, 
308;  regrets  his  uncle  has  become  ex¬ 
tremist,  106  n. ;  member  Congress,  155; 
judge  of  Cherokee  circuit,  171;  in 


“Southern  Caucus,”  182  f.;  on  southern- 
rights  meetings,  1850,  277;  on  “bluster” 
of  extremist  press,  278  f. ;  finds  Upper 
Georgia  for  Union,  280. 

Lumpkin,  Wilson,  148;  becomes  southern- 
rights  Democrat,  106;  warns  Calhoun  of 
Georgia  conservatism,  146  f.,  166,  206  f. 

MacGill,  C.  E.,  “Immigration  to  the  South¬ 
ern  States,  1783-1865,”  cited,  88. 

Macon,  117  f.,  180,  248,  278,  281,  297; 
trade  to  Charleston  and  Savannah,  14  f., 
17,  305  f. ;  railroad  connections,  16-18,  60; 
the  Citizen  called  abolitionist  paper  and 
suppressed,  294  f.;  secessionist  Mass 

Meeting,  1850,  283-286;  through  wire  to 
Washington  established,  284  n.;  slaves 
escape  from,  313;  “Union  Celebration” 
in,  349. 

Macon  Citizen,  117  f.,  281;  northern  editor 
of,  84;  editor  threatened,  119,  294  f. ; 
temporarily  suppressed,  295. 

Macon  Journal,  117  f.,  321,  345;  criticises 
South  Carolina,  63;  northern  editor  of, 
84;  claims  great  majority  for  Union,  279; 
warns  Boston  to  obey  fugitive  slave  law, 
313  f.;  declares  Georgia  will  support 
Union  if  war  follows  Carolina’s  secession, 
340;  first  Whig  paper  to  advocate  joining 
Democracy,  1852,  359. 

Macon  Telegraph,  118,  165,  180,  300;  first 
to  support  southern  movement,  150;  de¬ 
mands  Democracy  expel  antislavery  north¬ 
erners,  165;  threatens  secession,  1848, 
165;  urges  votes  for  delegates  to  Nash¬ 
ville,  257;  openly  avows  secession,  1850, 
287;  offers  its  columns  to  Hammond  dur¬ 
ing  state  convention  campaign,  305;  con¬ 
demns  “Georgia  Platform,”  336. 

Macon  Union  Celebration,  Proceedings  of, 
cited,  46,  86  f.,  94,  98,  104,  109,  289, 
292  f.,  304,  337  ff.,  347,  349,  354. 

Macon  and  Western  Railroad,  16. 

Madison,  James,  97,  201  f. 

Maine,  25;  lumbermen  in  Georgia,  80. 

Manufacturing,  in  Georgia,  22,  27,  289; 
independent  origin  of,  23;  propaganda 
for,  23-25,  316  f. ;  surpasses  that  in 

southern  and  some  northern  states,  25  f.; 
northerners  engaged  in,  80  f.;  “speaks 
louder  than  the  cannon’s  roar,”  1850, 
349  n. 

Marietta  Helicon,  200,  250;  northern  editor 
of,  84;  predicts  South  Carolina  secession 
will  throw  trade  to  Savannah,  62. 

Maryland,  surpassed  in  cotton  textiles  by 
Georgia,  25. 

Massachusetts,  25,  98;  Longstreet’s  indict¬ 
ment  of,  148  f. 

McAllister,  H.  M.,  Ill  n.;  leads  state- 
rights  Whigs  into  Democracy,  104  f. ; 
runs  for  governor,  105,  115;  planter- 

aristocrat  in  Democracy,  112;  condemned 
as  aristocrat,  115;  defeated  for  governor, 
116,  151;  delegate  to  Baltimore,  165;  de¬ 
clines  election  to  Nashville,  265;  Address 
to  Democratic-Republican  Convention  of 
Georgia,  1840,  cited,  104. 

McCune,  R.  W.,  extremist  leader,  state  con¬ 
vention,  1850,  326;  condemns  majority  in, 
327  f. 

McDonald,  C.  J.,  Ill  n.,  124,  151,  269, 
277;  leader  of  Georgia  delegates  to  Nash¬ 
ville,  265;  in  summer  debates,  1850,  275; 
president,  second  session  Nashville  Con¬ 
vention,  324;  nominated  for  governorship 


INDEX 


399 


"by  Southern-rights  party,  1851,  350; 

handicapped  by  record  as  secessionist, 
353;  defeated,  354. 

McIntosh  County,  248,  258  n.,  326. 

McKinley,  A.  E.,  and  Guetter,  F.  J.,  Sta¬ 
tistical  Tables,  cited,  22. 

McLendon,  S.  G.,  History  of  the  Public  Do¬ 
main  of  Georgia,  cited,  11. 

McWhertor,  J.  G.,  265  n.,  275,  324. 

Mechanics,  attitudes  towards  slavery,  73  f. 

Mellen,  G.  F.,  “Hilliard  and  Yancey,”  cited, 
355. 

Memphis,  railroad  convention  of  1845,  17; 
rail  connection  with  Georgia,  17. 

Men  of  Mark  in  Georgia,  cited,  189. 

Merchants,  in  Georgia  towns,  73. 

Meriwether,  James  A.,  on  public  opinion, 
Aug.,  1850,  281,  299;  ready  to  fight  dis- 
unionists,  299;  in  state  convention,  325  f. 

Merritt,  Elizabeth,  James  H.  Hammond, 
cited,  269,  271,  273. 

Mexican  War,  133,  138,  142,  150;  declared, 
131,  Whig  opposition  to,  131  f.,  152-154; 
Democratic  support  of,  142,  152-154; 

treaty  ending  provides  territorial  exten¬ 
sion,  155  f. ;  possible  influence  upon  pro- 
Union  feeling,  1850,  282. 

Middle  Georgia,  11;  settled  by  Carolinians 
and  Virginians,  90. 

Milledge,  John,  declares  Georgia  saved  the 
Union,  337,  342. 

Milledgeville,  118,  124,  142  f.,  148,  161, 
180,  197,  203,  216,  268,  278,  296;  referred 
to  as  “back  in  the  woods,”  115;  capital  of 
state,  140  n.;  suggested  as  meeting-place 
for  southern  convention,  297. 

Milledgeville  Federal  Union,  296,  336,  356; 
warns  South  Carolina,  60;  praises  north¬ 
ern  teachers  in  Georgia,  82;  South  Caro¬ 
lina  editor  of,  84;  demands  dismissal  of 
Lee  of  the  Chronicle,  86;  circulation,  118; 
termed  “licentious”  by  Recorder,  119;  op¬ 
poses  Calhoun,  1847,  150;  joins  southern 
movement,  lS-fB,  180;  supports  Nashville 
Convention  call,  215;  on  origin  of  Union 
party,  236,  236  n. ;  sees  Calhoun  as 

prophet,  246;  alarmed  by  Upper  Georgia 
criticisms  of  slavocracy,  250;  analyzes  re¬ 
sults  of  Nashville  Convention  elections, 
260;  refuses  to  avow  secession,  288,  318; 
denies  that  an  organized  secession  party 
ever  existed,  311;  declares  South  will 
stay  in  Union,  355  ;  accuses  Whigs  of 
agitating  slavery  issue,  1851,  357. 

Milledgeville  Southern  Recorder,  145,  160  f., 
168;  circulation,  118;  on  “licentiousness” 
of  Federal  Union,  119;  alarmed  over 
slavery,  1851,  357. 

Miller,  A.  J.,  conservative  Whig,  231  n.; 
in  state  convention,  325. 

Miller,  S.  F.,  Bench  and  Bar  of  Georgia, 
cited,  93  f.,  97,  162. 

Miscegenation,  extent  of  in  Georgia  and 
Ohio  compared,  32. 

Mississippi,  14,  216,  218,  223,  269,  291,  297, 
322,  340;  Jackson  meeting  calls  state  con¬ 
vention,  186;  Jackson  convention,  206, 
212  f. ;  response  to  its  call  for  southern 
convention,  214  f . ;  chief  hopes  of  Caro¬ 
linians  center  in,  300,  302;  shares  with 
Georgia  the  critical  position  in  secession 
movement,  302  f. ;  Union  victory  in,  1851, 
355. 

Missouri  Compromise  line,  extension  to 
Pacific  suggested  by  Georgia  Democrats, 
1847,  139,  141,  153;  1849,  224  f.;  incor¬ 


poration  in  Oregon  bill  defeated,  1848, 
159;  application  to  California  moved  by 
Union  Democrats,  1849,  224  f. ;  aban¬ 
doned  by  southern-rights  Democrats,  225; 
debate  on,  in  Assembly,  225-227;  revived 
by  southern-rights  Democrats  at  Nashville, 
270,  272;  significance  of  revival,  270  f., 
273  f.,  274  n. 

Mitchell,  Broadus,  “The  Rise  of  Cotton 
Mills  in  the  South,”  cited,  23;  “Frederick 
Law  Olmsted,”  cited,  39. 

Mobile  Advertiser,  28;  terms  Georgia  con¬ 
servative  despite  Toombs  and  Stephens, 
1850,  251. 

Monroe  County,  failure  of  extremist  meet¬ 
ing  in,  1850,  248  f. 

Montgomery  Atlas,  blames  Georgia  indiffer¬ 
ence  to  Nashville  Convention  upon  illiter¬ 
acy  and  ignorance,  260  f. 

Mosely,  Governor  of  Florida,  believes  poor 
whites  favor  Wilmot  Proviso,  71  f. 

Mountaineers,  see  Upper  Georgia. 

Mulattoes,  numbers  of  in  Georgia  and  Ohio 
compared,  32;  race-control  arguments  held 
not  applicable  to,  45. 

Muscogee  County,  see  Columbus. 

Nashville  Convention,  273  ff.,  282,  351; 
call  for,  213;  response  to,  in  South,  214; 
in  Georgia,  215;  measure  supporting,  in¬ 
troduced  in  Assembly,  223,  230;  Whig 
effort  to  postpone  defeated,  230  f . ;  Demo¬ 
cratic  method  of  choosing  delegates 
adopted,  231  f.,  256;  Whig  press  opposes, 
254;  Democratic  press  supports,  255;  re¬ 
lation  to  Georgia  state  convention,  255  f., 
261  f.;  preliminary  election  farce,  256  f. ; 
final  election  analyzed,  257  f. ;  conserva¬ 
tive  press  reaction  to  election,  258  f. ; 
extremist  interpretations  of  election,  259- 
262;  repudiation  of  Nashville  a  repudi¬ 
ation  of  southern  movement,  261;  Georgia 
delegation  to,  264  f.,  265  n.;  personnel  of, 
269;  Dawson’s  resolution  in,  270;  sig¬ 
nificance  of  Benning’s  resolutions  in, 
270  f . ;  Fouche’s  resolutions  in,  271; 
resolutions  adopted,  271  f. ;  address  is¬ 
sued,  272;  Democratic  press  approves, 
275;  second  session,  323  f.,  328;  “Ten¬ 
nessee  Resolutions”  in,  and  “Chatham 
Platform,”  324  f. 

National  Republicans,  101  f. 

Nationalism,  in  Whig  party,  102  f.;  south¬ 
ern,  206  f.,  293  f. 

Negroes,  see  also  Slavery,  Race  Problem, 
Free-Negroes;  46,  64,  277,  320  f. ;  rapid 
increase,  of,  in  Georgia,  13;  numbers  of, 
in  1850,  13;  in  the  Black  Belt,  14;  in 
other  sections,  14  n.;  slave  breeding,  32, 
232;  work  as  freedmen  and  slaves,  38; 
control  of,  under  slavery,  39  f . ;  viewed 
as  contented  in  Georgia,  39;  treatment  of, 
in  North,  42  f . ;  Weston’s  opinion  of, 
43  f. ;  population  problem  and  slavery  ex¬ 
tension,  46-49,  180;  attitude  of  planters 
towards,  66  f. ;  attitude  of  small  farmers 
towards,  69  f.;  of  “poor  whites”  towards, 
75  f. ;  of  immigrants  towards,  88;  bills 
to  deport  Free-Negroes  defeated  in  As¬ 
sembly,  1850,  233  f. ;  anti-Negro  appeal  in 
state  convention  campaign,  307,  309. 

Nesbit,  J.  A.,  308;  Macon  Whig  Leader,  225. 

New  England,  32;  manufacturing  in,  and 
the  South,  23  n. ;  similar  to  Upper  Geor¬ 
gia,  68;  fishermen  off  Georgia,  80;  factory 
girls  in  Georgia,  81;  engineers  in  Georgia, 
81;  teachers  in  Georgia,  81  f. 


400 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


New  Hampshire,  25,  157;  Proviso  resolu¬ 
tions  of,  1847,  152. 

New  Jersey,  surpassed  in  cotton  textiles  by 
Georgia,  25. 

New  Mexico,  156  ff.,  181,  218;  Georgia 
opinion  of  statehood  for,  196;  and  Clay 
Compromise,  240. 

New  Orleans,  18,  83. 

New  York  City,  246,  319;  trade  with,  16. 

New  York  Express,  maintains  correspondent 
in  Savannah,  306  n.;  declares  Georgia 
helped  save  Union,  338. 

New  York,  Herald,  warns  North,  243;  pre¬ 
dicts  Georgia  will  not  secede,  306. 

New  York  State,  43,  167,  176. 

New  York  Sun,  on  Clay  Compromise,  247. 

New  York  Tribune,  declares  South  united 
on  “Georgia  Platform,”  338. 

Newspapers,  “personal  journalism,”  116, 
119;  distribution  of,  in  Georgia,  116  f.; 
larger  circulation  of  Whig,  117  f.;  types 
of  editions,  117;  total  circulation  in 
Georgia,  118;  total  number,  118  n. ;  free¬ 
dom  of  press,  119;  influence  on  public 
opinion  limited,  120  f . ;  failure  to  take, 
leads  to  indifference  to  southern  move¬ 
ment,  260  f. ;  radical  ones  unrepresent¬ 
ative  of  public  opinion,  1850,  260,  263; 
contemporary  criticism  of  extremist  press, 
262,  263  n.,  279,  285. 

Nichols,  R.  F.,  The  Democratic  Machine, 
cited,  278,  346. 

“Non-Intercourse,”  see  South,  The. 

North,  The,  see  also  Northerners;  23,  49, 
163  f.,  180,  184.  191,  215,  222,  247,  270, 
273  f.,  293,  313  f.,  328,  331;  plans  for 
southern  economic  independence  of,  15  f., 
268  f.,  315-317;  attitude  in,  towards  Ne¬ 
groes,  42  f. ;  attitude  of  Georgia  planters 
towards,  49-51;  emigrants  from,  to  Geor¬ 
gia,  79-88;  approves  Wilmot  Proviso,  134, 
187;  declared  responsible  for  disunion 
danger,  by  Georgia  Assembly,  152  f.; 
gains  by  delay.  183;  abandons  Missouri 
line  principle,  225  f . ;  bills  to  limit  trade 
with,  defeated  in  Assembly,  232;  begins 
to  fear  secession,  242;  holds  “Union 
Meetings,”  242;  attacks  upon  Toombs  and 
Stephens  in,  24 2,  242  n.;  Georgians  to 
stay  out  of,  243  f.;  opinion  of  Nashville 
Convention,  273;  given  “last  chance”  by 
Southern  Press,  297 ;  conflict  with  South 
declared  inevitable,  1851,  344  f. ;  Geor¬ 
gia’s  “manufactures  speak  louder  to,  than 
cannon’s  roar,”  349  n. 

North  Carolina,  70;  peculiar  political 
alignment  in,  100. 

Northerners,  31,  68,  247,  281,  319  f.;  atti¬ 
tude  towards,  in  Georgia  Barrens,  76; 
Yankees  in  the  hills,  80  n. ;  motives  for 
moving  to  Georgia,  79  f.;  employments 
adopted  there,  80-82;  distribution  and  in¬ 
fluence  of,  82-84,  321;  contacts  with 

South  Carolinians  in  Georgia  towns,  84; 
as  Georgia  editors,  84;  attitude  towards 
slavery  and  the  Union,  84-86,  276;  feel¬ 
ing  towards,  in  Georgia,  85-88;  anti- 
Yankee  appeal  in  state  convention  cam¬ 
paign,  307,  309. 

Nullification  movement,  58;  in  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  93  f. ;  in  Georgia,  94-98. 

Oglethorpe,  descendants  of  his  paupers, 
12  n. 

Ohio,  134,  181;  compared  with  Georgia, 

28,  32. 

“Old  Yamacraw,”  see  Savannah. 

“Oligarchs,”  see  Planters. 


Olmsted,  F.  L.,  33,  64,  80  f.;  notes  im¬ 
portance  of  northerners  in  Georgia,  82; 
The  Cotton  Kingdom,  cited,  12,  75,  92; 
Journey  in  the  Seaboard  Slave  States ^ 
cited,  29,  64,  75,  81  f.,  85,  88. 

“Omnibus,”  see  Clay. 

Oneida  (N.  Y.)  Herald,  declares  those  who 
never  expect  to  own  Negroes  the  strong¬ 
est  supporters  of  slavery,  308  n. 

Oregon,  156  f.,  164;  Proviso  applied  to,  159. 

Owen,  A.  F.,  238  f.,  267;  Whig  represent¬ 
ative,  1850,  237  n. 

Owsley,  F.  L.,  State  Rights  in  the  Confed¬ 
eracy,  cited,  190. 

Paine,  L.  W.,  Six  Years  in  a  Georgia 
Prison,  cited,  32,  81,  85,  88. 

“Palmettodom,”  see  South  Carolina. 

Parsons,  C.  G.,  Tour  Among  the  Planters, 
cited,  73,  82;  notes  importance  of  north¬ 
erners  in  Georgia,  82. 

Pendleton,  L.  B.,  Alexander  H.  Stephens, 
cited,  240. 

Perry,  B.  F.,  Speech  in  South  Carolina 
House,  Dec.  11,  1850,  cited,  323. 

Persinger,  C.  E.,  “The  ‘Bargain  of  1844’  as 
the  Origin  of  the  Wilmot  Proviso,”  cited, 
132. 

Philadelphia,  41  f.,  162,  246;  cited  in  pre¬ 
amble  to  “Georgia  Platform,”  331. 

Philadelphia  Pennsylvanian,  359  n. ;  praises 
“Dorrism,”  114;  praises  “Georgia  Plat¬ 
form,”  338. 

Phillips,  G.  D.,  on  secession  spirit,  252. 

Phillips,  U.  B.,  American  Negro  Slavery, 
cited,  22,  33,  39,  77,  88;  “An  American 
State  Owned  Railroad,”  cited,  17;  “The 
Decadence  of  the  Plantation  System,” 
cited,  34;  Georgia  and  State  Rights,  cited, 
91  ff.,  97,  99,  103,  253,  312,  362;  Plant¬ 
ation  and  Frontier,  cited,  75;  Robert 
Toombs,  cited,  156,  183,  237,  238,  266, 
312,  349,  358;  361;  “Transportation  in 
the  Ante-Bellum  South,”  cited,  18;  Trans¬ 
portation  in  the  Eastern  Cotton  Beltt 
cited,  17. 

Piedmont,  The,  9,  11,  15. 

Pierce,  Franklin,  two  tickets  for,  in  Geor¬ 
gia,  360  f. ;  carries  Georgia,  361. 

Pike,  J.  S.,  First  Blows  of  the  Civil  War, 
cited.  239. 

Pine  Barrens,  174;  section  described,  10; 
early  settlement,  12;  “Poor  White*”' 
population  of,  74-78;  race  feeling  in, 
75  f.,  105,  307;  attitude  in  towards  north¬ 
erners,  76,  307;  Clark-Union  party  in, 
91,  100;  exceptional  Troup  counties  in, 
92;  state-rights  element  in,  105;  Nash¬ 
ville  election  county  votes  in,  258  n.;  un¬ 
represented  at  Nashville,  264  f.;  ring  of 
counties  around,  carried  by  extremists, 
1850,  320. 

“Piney-Woods  People,”  see  “Poor  Whites.” 

Plantation,  The,  cited,  32,  99,  104,  126,  173. 

Plantation  system,  24,  33;  distinction  be¬ 
tween,  and  slave-labor  system,  and  race 
problem,  34;  Irish  labor  in  connection 
with,  88. 

Planters,  92;  their  attitude  towards  the 
Union,  46;  attitude  towards  slavery  exten¬ 
sion,  47,  49;  towards  secession,  49-53; 
unusual  attitude  in  South  Carolina,  53; 
general  description  of,  64-67;  influence  in 
parties,  66;  attitude  towards  Negroes, 
66  f.;  attitude  misunderstood,  67;  polit¬ 
ically  democratic  in  Georgia,  115;  oppo¬ 
sition  to  Wilmot  Proviso,  133. 


INDEX 


401 


Political  Parties,  origin  of,  in  Georgia, 
90  f. ;  causes  of  party  confusion,  92; 
parties  reverse  constitutional  positions, 
107-109;  significance  of  constitutional  is¬ 
sues,  109  f.;  class  basis  of,  110-112; 
democracy  as  an  issue  between,  112-116; 
distribution  and  circulation  of  party 
journals,  116-118;  partisan  editorials,  119; 
influence  of  party  press,  120  f . ;  criteria 
for  same,  120  f. ;  political  influence  of 
public  meetings,  121;  politics  as  sport, 
121  f. ;  even  balance  of  Georgia  parties, 
and  consequences,  110,  122,  173  f. ;  char¬ 
acter  of  elections,  122;  influence  of  lead¬ 
ers  of,  limited,  122  f. ;  organization  of, 
in  Georgia,  124  f.,  152,  161  f . ;  movement 
for  southern  political  unity  begun,  137  f., 
146-151,  180,  189,  194,  206,  211,  212; 
Assembly  refuses  to  adapt  southern  party, 
222;  Democratic  party  splits,  Aug.,  1850, 
286  ff . ;  Union  and  Southern-rights  par¬ 
ties  formed,  334  f;  effects  of  1850  cam¬ 
paign  on,  343;  new  parties  adapted  only 
to  state  politics,  348;  disintegrate  in  1853, 
357-362;  old  alignments  reestablished,  362. 

Polk,  James  IC.,  134,  138,  142,  157,  169, 
176,  181,  235  n. ;  supports  Texan  an¬ 
nexation,  127,  129;  carries  Georgia,  1844, 
130;  urges  organization  of  southwest  ter¬ 
ritories,  181;  encourages  Cobb  to  oppose 
Calhoun,  182;  Diary,  cited,  182. 

“Poor  Whites”  of  Pine  Barrens,  local 
names  for,  74;  their  importance,  74,  77; 
characteristics  of,  74  f . ;  degeneracy  and 
disease  among,  75;  attitude  towards  Ne¬ 
groes,  75  f.,  308  f. ;  towards  northerners, 
76,  308  f . ;  numbers,  77;  northern  ex¬ 
planation  of  their  degeneracy,  77;  simi¬ 
larity  to  northern  groups  overlooked  by 
northern  critics,  77  n. ;  southern  explana¬ 
tion  of  their  degeneracy,  77  f. ;  their 
status  improved  by  slavery,  78. 

Public  Opinion,  in  Georgia,  and  newspa¬ 
pers,  116-121;  and  public  meetings,  121; 
criteria  for  judging,  120  f.,  172;  influ¬ 
ence  of  leaders  upon,  122  f.,  171  f.,  175; 
apathy  of,  1848,  171  f.,  174  f.,  1849, 
190  f.;  conservatism  of  in  winter  of 

1850,  247-254,  260-263;  legislature  of 

1850  unrepresentative  of,  262  f. ;  radical 
press  unrepresentative  of,  262  f.,  279, 
285;  secessionists  attempt  to  influence, 
summer,  1850,  275-278,  283-286;  apathy 
and  conservatism  of,  summer,  1850,  277- 
281;  Union  propaganda,  281-283;  estimates 
of,  Sept.,  1850,  by  conservatives,  298-300; 
these  agree  with  secret  opinions  of  seces¬ 
sionists,  300-302;  attitude  of  social  groups, 
1850,  308,  308  n.;  not  changed  funda¬ 
mentally  by  returning  congressmen,  311  f. ; 
shown  by  elections  overwhelmingly  pro- 
Union,  319-323,  344. 

Quitman,  John  A.,  85,  291;  reports  seces¬ 
sion  prospects  good  in  Mississippi,  302; 
nominated  for  vice-president  by  secession¬ 
ists,  1852,  361  f. 

Race  Problem,  see  also  Negroes,  Slavery;  in 
Georgia  Black  Belt,  14,  67,  70,  76;  dis¬ 
tinction  between,  and  slave-labor,  and 
plantation  system,  34;  relation  to  slavery, 
39-46,  180;  riots  in  North,  42;  in  West 
Indies,  41,  44;  relation  to  secession,  45  f . ; 
fear  of  race  strife,  40,  46,  48,  203,  277; 
in  Upper  Georgia,  69,  76;  in  Pine  Bar¬ 
rens,  75  f. ;  domestic  slave  trade  brings 
vicious  Negroes,  233;  Assembly  debate  on 
free-Negroes,  233  f. 


Railroads,  27 ;  rapid  development  of,  in 
Georgia,  1845-1850,  15-18,  289  f.;  capital 
invested  in,  in  Georgia,  1850,  29;  involve- 
trade  rivalry  between  South  Carolina  and 
Georgia,  56-61,  305;  northern  engineers 
upon,  81;  Irish  laborers  upon,  88;  “speak 
louder  than  the  cannon’s  roar,”  1850, 
349  n. 

Ramsey,  of  Harris,  threatens  to  extend 
slavery  by  bayonette,  227. 

Ray,  S.  J.,  of  Macon  Telegraph,  150;  first 
editor  to  support  southern  movement, 
150;  asks  Hammond  for  editorials,  1850, 
305. 

Reed,  J.  C.,  The  Brother’s  War,  cited,  92.. 

Retnarks  Upon  Slavery,  Occasioned  by  At¬ 
tempts  to  Circulate  Improper  Publications, 
cited,  35. 

Republican  party,  90,  114  n. 

Revolution,  “right  of,”  asserted  by  Demo¬ 
crats,  denied  by  Whigs,  113  f . ;  in  reso¬ 
lution  at  Nashville,  271. 

Revolutions  of  1848,  89,  202;  influence  on. 
cotton  prices,  22;  attitude  of  Whigs  and 
Democrats  towards,  113  f. 

Rhett,  R.  B.,  185,  286;  leads  Bluffton 
Movement,  128;  at  Nashville,  269,  271; 
secession  speech  of,  273;  acclaims  seces¬ 
sion  at  Macon,  1850,  284-286;  declares 
Georgia  will  “lead  off,”  297;  burlesque 
on  name,  319. 

Rhodes,  T.  F.,  History  of  the  United  States, 
cited,  31,  177,  266. 

Rome  (Ga.),  118. 

Rowland,  D.,  (Ed.),  Jefferson  Davis,  cited, 
67,  78. 

Russel,  R.  R.,  Economic  Aspects  of  South¬ 
ern  Sectionalism,  1840-1861 ,  cited,  16, 
21-23,  74,  107;  on  state-rights  principles 
of  Georgia  Whigs,  108  n. 

Russell,  W.  H.,  Pictures  of  Southern  Life, 
cited,  39,  87. 

“Sand-Hillers,”  see  “Poor  Whites.” 

Saundersville  Central  Georgian,  277. 

Savannah,  116,  175,  307,  327,  329;  rivalry 
with  Charleston  for  interior  trade,  14  f., 
17,  56-61,  305  f.;  railroad  connections, 
16-18;  banking  in,  19  f . ;  disease  condi¬ 
tions  in,  59  n. ;  northern  printers  in,  80; 
northerners  in,  83,  321;  Irish  in,  and 
their  political  influence,  88  f.,  309,  321; 
state-rights  element  in,  105;  “Swelled 
Heads”  (aristocrats)  of,  115;  usually 
Democratic,  171;  state-rights  Whigs  in, 
194;  Nashville  Convention  election  vote 
in,  258  n.;  South  Carolina  radical  ele¬ 
ment  in,  278;  Berrien  support  in,  307, 
309;  Union  meeting  in,  draws  up  “Chat¬ 
ham  Platform,”  Oct.,  1850,  314  f. ;  mer¬ 
chants  in,  cease  trade  with  North,  317; 
carried  by  Unionists,  321. 

Savannah  Georgian,  165,  168,  288;  debates 
slavery  economics,  34;  praises  “Dorrism,” 
114;  owners  distinct  from  editors,  116; 
on  Whig  press,  119;  opposes  Calhoun, 
1847,  150;  appeals  to  Irish,  175;  warns 
the  South,  1848,  179  f. ;  on  Macon  Mass 
Meeting,  285;  begins  to  moderate,  287; 
declares  convention  election  corrupt,  322; 
accepts  “Platform,”  336. 

Savannah  News,  116  n.,  259,  287,  294;  on 
South  Carolina  secession,  and  trade,  62; 
independent  Democratic,  116  n.;  first 

cheap  paper  in  Georgia,  117;  gives  quali¬ 
fied  support  to  Nashville  Convention,  255; 
on  Macon  Mass  Meeting,  285  f. ;  sup¬ 
ports  Berrien’s  “Non-intercourse”  plan, 
316;  on  convention  election,  322. 


402 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Savannah  Republican,  121,  161,  221;  north¬ 
ern  editor  of,  84;  owners  distinct  from 
editors,  116;  attacks  South  Carolina, 
128  n.,  193,  248;  on  preliminary  Nash¬ 
ville  Convention  elections,  256;  on  Macon 
Mass  Meeting,  285;  declares  all  praise 
Georgia,  1850,  339. 

Scot,  Winfield,  Whig  nominee,  for  presi¬ 
dency,  360;  supported  by  conservative 
Georgia  Whigs,  361;  receives  bulk  of 
Whig  votes,  361. 

•Scriven  County,  148  n.,  222,  326. 

Seabrook,  W.  B.,  governor  of  South  Caro¬ 
lina,  40,  213;  ascribes  southern  conser¬ 
vatism  to  prosperity,  52,  291;  writes 

Georgia  governor  declaring  South  Caro¬ 
lina  ready  to  secede,  Sept.,  1850,  300;  is 
warned  Georgia  is  not  ready,  300;  prom¬ 
ises  to  hold  Carolina  back,  “conciliate” 
Georgia,  and  “stimulate”  other  southern 
states,  301;  predicts  Georgia  will  not 
secede,  302;  abandons  belief  Georgia  can 
be  “drawn  into”  secession  movement,  302; 
fears  to  send  representatives  to  Georgia 
convention,  1850,  304  f. 

Seabrook  MSS,  cited,  40,  52,  72,  108,  213, 
291,  300  ff.,  304. 

."Secession,  see  also  Union,  The;  43,  49,  180, 
268,  269,  276  f.;  relation  to  race  prob¬ 
lem,  45  f.;  attitude  of  Georgia  planters 
towards,  49-53;  first  advocated  in  South 
Carolina,  1844,  128;  first  openly  discussed 
in  Georgia,  164,  251;  converts  to,  1849, 
201  f.;  in  1850,  288;  in  1851,  350  ff.; 
official  threat  of,  in  Assembly,  1849, 
220  ff.;  Connecticut  ignore’s  threats  of, 
227;  Georgia  Whigs  threaten,  238;  grow¬ 
ing  fear  of,  in  North,  1850,  242;  greatest 
danger  of,  Jan.,  1850,  245;  opposition  to, 
in  Georgia,  spring  of  1850,  249-251;  and 
the  Nashville  Convention,  254  f . ;  “No 
Disunion”  ticket  voted  in  Georgia  Nash¬ 
ville  election,  257  f.;  Nashville  repudi¬ 
ated  lest  it  lead  to,  262;  “right  of,”  in 
Nashville  resolutions,  270  f. ;  plan  to  use 
Missouri  line  demand  to  bring  about, 
270  f.,  273  f.,  274  n. ;  “southern-rights” 
men  not  all  secessionists,  273  f.;  first 
openly  acclaimed,  Macon  Mass  Meeting, 
283-286;  South  Carolina  waits  for  Geor¬ 
gia  to  “lead  off,”  300;  is  informed  Union¬ 
ists  in  majority,  301;  Georgia  an  ob¬ 
stacle  to  secession  of  Carolina,  302; 
radical  papers  demand,  310;  southern- 
rights  leaders  disavow,  310-312;  no  can¬ 
didates  for  state  convention  advocate,  311; 
threatened  in  “Georgia  Platform,”  331; 
Southern-rights  party  denies  ever  having 
intended,  344;  small  minority  declares  in¬ 
evitable,  1851,  344  f. ;  “right  of,”  urged 
successfully,  1851,  355  f . ;  ticket  favor¬ 
ing,  fails  in  Georgia,  1852,  361  f. 

Senate  (national),  171,  180,  211,  218,  225, 
262,  274;  Georgia  members  not  con¬ 

trolled  by  state  legislature,  124;  Georgia 
members,  1847-48,  155;  Proviso  problem 
and  Clayton  Compromise  in,  1848,  183; 
fails  to  solve  territorial  problem,  1849, 
185;  parties  balanced  in,  1850,  237;  Tay¬ 
lor’s  territorial  plans  opposed  in,  239  f. ; 
Clay’s  “Compromise”  introduced  in,  240; 
warned  that  Georgia  will  act,  240;  Bell’s 
compromise  plan  in,  241;  compromise 
move  progresses  in,  241  f.,  266  f. 

Seward,  J.  L.,  extremist  leader,  state  con¬ 
vention,  1850,  326  f.;  introduces  radical 
resolutions,  328;  condemns  Toombs,  328, 
332. 


Sharkey,  W.  L.,  269,  324. 

Sherwood,  Adiel,  Gazetteer  of  Georgia,  cited, 
11,  26. 

Shipp,  J.  E.  D.,  William  H.  Crawford , 
cited,  91. 

Sioussat,  St.  George  L.,  “Co-operation  for 
the  Development  of  the  Material  Welfare 
of  the  South,”  cited,  16,  317;  “Tennessee, 
the  Compromise  of  1850,  and  the  Nash¬ 
ville  Convention,”  cited,  241,  269,  271  f., 
325. 

Slave-labor  system,  see  also  Slavery;  24; 
distinction  between,  and  plantation  sys¬ 
tem,  and  race  problem,  34. 

Slave  Trade  (domestic),  13,  32;  debate  on, 
in  Georgia  Assembly,  1850,  232  f. 

Slavery,  see  also  Negroes,  Race  Problem; 
13,  30,  104  n.,  131,  171,  180,  271,  296; 
religious  indictment  of,  and  defence,  31; 
moral  indictment  and  defence,  32;  slave¬ 
breeding,  32,  232;  economic  indictment 
and  defence,  33-37;  emancipation,  35  f.; 
a  good  per  se,  35  f.,  45;  change  in  south¬ 
ern  attitude  towards,  37;  medical  argu¬ 
ment  for,  39;  complicated  by  race  prob¬ 
lem,  39-45;  identified  with  race  problem, 
41;  as  a  system  of  social  control,  40  f. ; 
in  West  Indies,  41,  44;  extension  prob¬ 
lem,  46-49,  227;  slave  prices,  47;  Geor¬ 
gia  farmers  as  slaveholders,  68-70;  atti¬ 
tude  of  Upper  Georgia  towards,  and  its 
political  results,  70-73,  250  f. ;  first  appear¬ 
ance  as  major  political  issue  in  Georgia, 
1840,  103  f . ;  demand  for  extension  cf, 
126;  impossibility  of  introducing  in  South¬ 
west,  133  n.,  156;  governor  recommends 
protection  of  slaves,  218;  issue  in  Georgia 
Assembly,  1849-1850,  224  ff.;  California 
declared  adapted  to,  226  f. ;  threat  to 
extend  by  bayonette,  227;  extension  item 
in  “Georgia  Platform,”  331  f. ;  slave 
markets  condemned  in  Georgia  Assembly, 
1850,  233;  non-slaveholders  declared 

strongest  supporters  of,  308  n. 

Slavery  and  the  Internal  Slave  Trade,  cited, 
13,  32. 

Slavery  Indispensable  Parallel'  to  Civiliza¬ 
tion,  cited,  41. 

Slavocracy,  The,  northern  idea  of,  31; 
northern  and  southern  misconceptions  of, 
67;  mountaineers’  attitude  towards,  70-73, 

Smith,  Justin,  criticism  of  Senator  Ber¬ 
rien’s  opposition  to  Mexican  War,  136  n.; 
War  with  Mexico,  cited,  136. 

Smythe,  James  M.,  108;  editor  Augusta 
Republic,  161;  backs  Clay,  1848,  161  f.; 
attacks  the  Chronicle,  203  f. ;  on  election 
of  1849,  209  f. ;  threatens  secession,  255; 
in  summer  debates,  1850,  275;  president, 
Southern-rights  state  convention,  1851, 
350. 

Socialists,  identified  with  abolitionists,  33. 

South,  The,  149,  152,  156,  159  f.,  164,  167, 
169,  178-180,  184  ff.,  194,  206  f.,  222, 
247,  255,  270,  274,  277  f.,  328,  331;  eco¬ 
nomic  decline  of,  15;  plans  for  improve¬ 
ment,  15  {.;  trade  with  West,  17;  manu¬ 
facturing  advantages  in,  23;  suffers  from 
political  campaigning,  121  f. ;  desire  in,  for 
Texan  annexation,  127;  in  danger,  137, 
139;  declared  betrayed,  167  f. ;  warned  in 
Georgia,  179  f. ;  warned  by  Calhoun,  183; 
reaction  in,  to  “Southern  Caucus,”  185  f. ; 
dismal  future  of,  207;  call  for  southern 
convention,  213;  response  to,  214  f.;  de¬ 
serted  by  Taylor,  237;  offered  little  in 
Clay  “Compromise,”  240;  reassured  by 
northern  “Union  Meetings,”  242;  urged 


INDEX 


403 


to  use  economic  “non-intercourse”  against 
North,  268  f.,  315-317;  advised  to  pre¬ 
pare  for  war,  272;  declared  united  on 
“Georgia  Platform,”  337-341;  conflict  with 
North  declared  inevitable,  1851,  344  f. ; 
immediate  danger  of  secession  ends,  1851, 
355. 

South  Carolina,  14,  21  52,  70,  101,  105,  133, 
139,  146,  180,  185  f.,  233,  273,  275,  289, 
303;  early  settlers  from,  in  Georgia,  11, 
90  f. ;  trade  rivalry  with  Georgia,  17,  56- 
61,  305  f.;  banking  in,  19;  financial  riv¬ 
alry  with  Georgia,  20,  58,  305  f. ;  need  of 
Negro  population,  48  f . ;  economic  decline 
and  comparison  with  Georgia,  53-57,  127; 
and  the  tariff,  54;  manufacturing  in, 
55  f.;  feeling  between,  and  Georgia,  57- 
63,  96,  98,  129,  192  f.,  213  n.,  304-306, 
319,  327;  northern  and  southern  criticism 
of,  62  f. ;  dislike  of  poor  whites  in,  for 
Negroes,  76;  South  Carolinians  move  to 
Georgia,  79;  their  influence  in  Georgia, 
79,  278,  309;  as  Georgia  editors,  84;  nul¬ 
lification  movement  in,  93  f.;  attempts  to 
influence  Georgia,  94-96;  Bluffton  Move¬ 
ment  in,  127-129;  supports  “Southern 
Platform,”  138;  urges  southern  unity, 
181;  ridiculed  by  Georgia  Whigs,  192  f.; 
hopes  for  Georgia,  206,  219,  252,  297, 
303;  leads  response  to  southern  conven¬ 
tion  call,  214;  delegation  to  Nashville,  269, 
271,  273;  governor  declares  ready  to 

secede,  300;  Georgia  an  obstacle  to,  300- 
302;  chief  hopes  in  Mississippi,  302;  re¬ 
action  to  Georgia  Union  victory,  322  f. ; 
her  secession  blocked  by  Georgia,  323, 
340;  state  convention  decides  against 
secession,  355. 

South  Carolina  Railroad,  16. 

“Southern  Address,”  186,  188,  197  f.,  204; 
contents,  183;  Georgia  Democracy  fails  to 
adopt,  198. 

“Southern  Caucus,”  195;  origin  of,  181  f.; 
activities  of  Georgia  members  of,  182  f . ; 
“Addresses”  issued,  183-185. 

Southern  Confederacy,  ideas  of,  189  f., 
292  f. ;  state  .convention  speaker  hopes 
never  to  see  a,  333. 

Southern  Convention,  see  also  Nashville 
Convention;  early  suggestions  for,  93  f., 
139  n.;  Calhoun’s  plan  for,  139;  call  is¬ 
sued  by  Mississippi,  213. 

Southern  Convention,  Resolutions,  Address 
and  Proceedings  of,  cited,  265,  270  ff. 

Southern  Cultivator,  The,  demands  agricul¬ 
tural  reform  in  Georgia,  21,  117;  largest 
circulation  in  Georgia,  21,  117. 

Southern  Members  of  Congress,  Address  to 
their  Constituents,  1849,  cited,  40. 

Southern  Movement,  see  also  Secession; 
197;  led  by  Calhoun,  137;  early  response 
to,  137  f.;  only  Calhoun  Democrats  re¬ 
spond  to,  in  Georgia,  1847,  146-151;  aided 
in  Georgia  by  Congress  of  1848,  164  f.; 
gains  strength  in  Democracy  after  1848, 
180;  the  “Southern  Caucus,”  182  f. ; 
“Addresses”  issued  from,  183-185;  Geor¬ 
gia  Democratic  papers  join,  1849,  189; 
joined  by  state-rights  Whigs,  193  f.;  im¬ 
portance  to,  of  Georgia  election  of  1849, 
206;  pessimistic  reports  from  Georgia, 
1849,  206  f . ;  Democratic  victory  in 
Georgia  stimulates,  1849,  211  f. ;  progress 
in  Mississippi,  212  f . ;  call  for  southern 
convention,  186,  213;  response  in  South, 
214  f . ;  Assembly  refuses  to  formally  ap¬ 
prove,  222;  elections  to  Nashville,  256- 
265;  Nashville  Convention,  269-273;  reac¬ 
tion  to,  275;  plan  to  develop  southern 


into  secession  movement,  270  ff.,  274  n. ; 
propaganda  for,  summer,  1850,  274-277, 

283- 286;  propaganda  against,  281-283  r 
first  proclaimed  as  secession  movement, 

284- 286;  Macon  meeting  a  turning  point 
in,  286;  checked  by  Georgia  Union  vic¬ 
tory,  1850,  336-342;  ended  for  decade  by 
Union  victories,  1851,  355;  relation  tO’ 
1861,  355  f.,  356. 

“Southern  Platform,”  139,  142,  222;  intro¬ 
duced  by  Calhoun,  137;  response  to  in 
South,  137  f.;  issue  in  state  campaign,. 

1847,  151. 

Southern-rights,  see  Southern  Movement; 
69;  Democrats  claim  to  be  party  of,  144,. 
198,  207,  208,  211  f.;  issue  in  1848,  167- 
170;  Whigs  claim  to  be  party  of,  167  f., 
198  f.,  207  f.;  issue  in  1849,  200,  208;  a 
doctrine  of  editors,  not  masses,  261. 

Southern-rights  Democrats,  115,  136,  163  f., 
188,  198;  influence  among,  of  old  state- 
rights  Whigs,  105  f.,  251  f.,  278,  280; 
friction  with  Union  Democrats,  105-107, 
109,  115  f.,  140  f.,  164,  197  ff.,  204  f.,. 
225  ff.,  234  ff.,  278  f. ;  appeal  to  Whigs, 
142  f. ;  respond  to  Calhoun’s  southern 
movement,  1847,  146-151;  discouraged,. 

1848,  166  f. ;  encouraged  by  Whigs,  167, 
169;  joined  by  Georgia  Democratic  edi¬ 
tors,  188  f.;  “get  up”  meetings,  1849, 
190  f. ;  view  “right  of  secession”  as  con¬ 
stitutional,  201  f.,  288;  pessimistic  corre¬ 
spondence  with  Calhoun,  206  f. ;  analysis 
of  election  of  1849,  210;  gain  by  this 
election,  211;  prospects,  216;  control  As¬ 
sembly,  221  ff. ;  abandon  Missouri  line, 
225-227;  plan  for  representation  at  Nash¬ 
ville  adopted,  230  f. ;  condemn  Compro¬ 
mise,  246  f . ;  attack  Toombs,  247;  domi¬ 
nate  delegation  to  Nashville,  265;  activi¬ 
ties  there,  270  f.;  plan  to  force  seces¬ 
sion,  271-274;  attempt  to  reach  public 
opinion,  summer,  1850,  274-277,  283-286; 
press  unrepresentative,  262,  263  n.,  279; 
leaders  out  of  office,  1850,  308  n.;  appear 
to  race  and  sectional  prejudices,  309; 
abandon  advocacy  of  secession,  310  ff., 
318  ff. ;  return  of  congressmen  not  pri¬ 
mary  factor  in  this  change,  311  f. ;  ridi¬ 
culed  by  conservatives,  318  f.;  defeated 
in  state  convention  election,  319-323;  pro¬ 
tests  of,  in  state  convention,  327-329,  332- 
334;  become  Southern-rights  party,  335; 
invitations  to  Union  faction  to  reunite 
Democracy  refused,  344,  360;  run  inde¬ 
pendent  Pierce  ticket,  360;  join  Union 
faction  in  reunited  Democracy,  1853,  362. 

Southern-rights  Party,  71,  73;  Assembly 
alignments  suggestive  of,  1850,  225  f. ; 
first  origins  of,  in  gerrymander  struggle, 
235  f. ;  formed  by  elimination  of  Union 
Democrats,  335;  invites  all  Democrats  to 
join,  344,  356;  all  but  small  minority  of, 
disavows  secession,  344  f. ;  claims  recog¬ 
nition  by  national  Democracy,  347;; 
adapted  only  to  state  politics,  348;  state 
convention,  1851,  350;  nominates  Mc¬ 

Donald,  350;  revives  “right  of  secession” 
issue,  350-353;  schemes  for  dividing  Union 
party  fail,  351  n. ;  defeated,  1851,  354;. 
lasting  influence  of  its  efforts,  355  f. ; 
reverses  attitude  towards  slavery  issue, 
357;  delegation  to  national  convention 
seated  with  “Tugalo”  delegation,  359  f.  r 
invitation  to  “Tugaloes”  to  join,  refused, 
1852,  360;  numbers  of,  1850-1852,  360  n.; 
runs  independent  Pierce  ticket,  360;  car¬ 
ries  election,  361;  joins  Union  faction  in 
reunited  Democracy,  362. 


404 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


Southwest  Georgia,  10  f . ;  early  settlement, 
11  f. ;  new  land  in,  21  f . ;  second  district 
in,  politically  uncertain,  171. 

Sovereignty,  Calhoun’s  conception  of,  97, 
201;  divisibility  of,  asserted  by  Arnold, 
1833,  97;  by  Daniel  Lee,  1849,  201  f. ; 
modern  theories  of  divisibility,  202  n. 

Spaulding,  Thomas,  President  state  con¬ 
vention,  326;  Union  sentiments  of,  326  f. 

'“Squatter  Sovereignty,”  Georgia  Demo¬ 
crats  approve,  1848,  reject,  1849,  198  n. 

State-Rights  Party,  see  also  Troup  Party; 
204;  origins,  93;  attitude  towards  Indian 
and  Nullification  questions,  93,  99; 

merges  with  Whig  party,  101-103;  revolt 
of  state-rights  Whigs,  101,  103  f. 

States’  Rights  Party  Convention,  1833,  Pro¬ 
ceedings  of,  cited,  95. 

State-rights  Democrats,  see  Southern-rights 
Democrats. 

State-rights  Whigs,  157,  199;  small  group 
remains  in  Georgia  Whiggery  after  1840, 
108,  203  f. ;  criticise  majority,  109;  sup¬ 
port  Clay  for  Whig  nomination,  1848, 
160  f. ;  encouraged  by  Democrats,  167, 

169  f. ;  in  election  of  1848,  163,  176; 

join  southern  movement,  193  f;  attitude 
explained,  194;  in  Savannah  and  Augusta, 
194;  support  Clayton  Compromise,  201; 
support  rights  of  secession  and  revolution, 
203  f. ;  large  number  in  Assembly,  1849- 
1850,  217,  221;  extremist  moves  of,  in 
Assembly,  225  ff . ;  lost  in  Democracy, 
1849,  253  n.;  support  “Berrien  Plat¬ 
form,”  1850,  317;  in  Southern-rights 

party,  1851,  350. 

Stephens,  Alexander  H.,  123,  132,  138, 

154  f.,  164,  191,  195,  307,  349,  354;  claims 
Georgia  more  prosperous  than  Ohio,  28, 
33;  moral  objections  to  slavery,  35;  ex¬ 
planation  of  varying  attitudes  in  1850, 
50  f. ;  explains  joining  Whigs,  1840, 
103  n.;  influence  in  Central  Georgia,  124; 
supports  Texan  annexation,  127,  130  f.; 
warns  against  Proviso  and  civil  war, 
134  f. ;  opposes  Mexican  War,  155;  op¬ 
poses  Clayton  Compromise,  158  f.,  169, 
170;  backs  Taylor  for  president,  160; 
versus  Berrien,  169  f.,  199;  quarrel  with 
Cone  and  Johnson,  172;  assaulted  by 
Cone,  172  f. ;  in  “Southern  Caucus,” 
182  f.;  tries  to  remove  Lee,  204  n. ;  move 
to  change  his  district,  235;  joins  “Fire- 
eaters”  in  Congress,  237  f. ;  accepts  gen¬ 
eral  compromise,  240  f. ;  reasons  for  not 
urging  secession,  240  n.,  292;  opposes 
California  resolution,  241;  alarms  North, 

242,  266;  press  criticism  of,  242,  242  n., 

243,  247,  251;  and  Taylor’s  death,  266  f. ; 
returns  to  Georgia,  1850,  307  f. ;  his  re¬ 
turn  not  primary  factor  in  public  opinion, 
311  f. ;  condemned  by  extremists,  313, 
332;  in  state  convention,  325;  claims 
authorship  of  “Georgia  Platform,”  329; 
fails  to  form  national  Union  party,  346  f. ; 
leads  Whig  minority  for  Webster,  1852, 
361;  More  of  Georgia  and  Ohio,  cited,  28; 
War  Between  the  States,  cited,  241. 

Stephens,  Linton,  conservative  leader,  As¬ 
sembly,  1850,  328  f. 

Stephenson,  N.  W.,  Texas  and  the  Mexican 
War,  cited,  128. 

Stone,  A.  H.,  American  Race  Problem,  cited, 
43,  69;  “Free  Contract  Labor  in  the 

Ante-Bellum  South,”  cited,  69;  “Some 
Problems  of  Southern  Economic  His¬ 
tory,”  cited,  42,  88. 

Stone  Mountain,  10,  21  n. 


Stoval,  P.  A.,  Robert  Toombs,  cited,  115, 
164,  329. 

Supreme  Court  (national),  and  Clayton 
Compromise,  159;  and  Georgia  “non-inter¬ 
course”  bills,  316. 

Tariff,  The,  95,  133,  142;  opposition  to,  in 
South,  24;  Georgia  opposition  to,  1828, 
93  f.;  leads  to  nullification  in  South 

Carolina,  94;  nullification  urged  in  Geor¬ 
gia,  95;  protection  advocated  by  Georgia 
Whigs,  102;  in  Georgia  politics,  126  n. ; 
leads  to  Bluffton  Movement,  127;  de¬ 
clared  dead  issue  in  Georgia,  1851,  351  n. 

Tattnall  County,  174;  usually  Whig,  92, 
171. 

Taylor,  A.  A.,  “The  Movement  of  Negroes 
to  the  Gulf  States,”  cited,  13. 

Taylor,  Zachary,  131,  166  f.,  173,  178  f., 
185,  192,  194,  210,  273;  considered  by 
Georgia  Democratic  Convention,  1847, 
140;  acclaimed  by  Georgia  Whigs  for 
president,  144,  160-163;  nominated,  163; 
proclaimed  the  “southern  candidate,”  167; 
attacked  by  Democrats,  168  f.;  poetic 
satire  of,  169;  vote  for,  in  Georgia, 
175  f. ;  his  “soundness”  suspected,  200; 
California  policy  attacked,  220;  Proviso 
attitude  alienates  Georgia  Whigs,  237; 
territorial  plans  of,  opposed  in  Senate, 
239  f.;  death,  266;  results  of,  267. 

Tennessee,  70,  186,  269;  early  settlers 

from,  in  Georgia,  12;  rail  connection  with, 
17;  resolution  of  delegation  from,  in  sec¬ 
ond  session,  Nashville  Convention,  324  f. 

Texas,  138.  272,  296;  annexation  of,  de¬ 
sired  in  Georgia  and  South  Carolina,  126- 
129;  and  Clay  Compromise,  240;  and 
Bell’s  Compromise,  241. 

Thomas,  E.  J.,  Memoirs  of  a  Southerner, 
cited,  10. 

Thompson,  Waddy,  113  n.,  156. 

Toombs,  Robert,  123,  143,  155  f.,  158,  160, 
164,  168,  172  f.,  191,  307,  349;  explana¬ 
tion  of  varying  attitudes  in  1850,  50  f.; 
criticism  of  his  wealth,  114  f. ;  influence 
in  Central  Georgia,  124;  on  danger  of 
secession,  135;  encourages  Calhoun,  1847, 
142;  urges  moderation,  1848,  179;  opposes 
Calhoun  in  “Southern  Caucus,”  182  f.; 
move  to  change  his  district,  235;  joins 
“Fire-eaters”  in  Congress,  237  f. ;  ac¬ 
cepts  Compromise,  240;  alarms  North, 

242,  266;  press  attacks  upon,  242,  242  n., 

243,  247,  251,  266  f.,  332;  writes  governor 
he  will  accept  Compromise,  247,  247  n. ; 
“Hamilcar  speech”  of,  266;  and  Taylor’s 
death,  266  f. ;  utterances  cause  confusion, 
266;  praised  by  New  York  Sun,  267  n.; 
returns  .to  Georgia,  1850,  307  f. ;  return 
not  primary  factor  in  public  opinion, 
311  f. ;  attacked  by  extremists,  312  f., 
328;  in  state  convention,  325;  addresses 
first  Union  party  meeting,  335,  335  n.; 
fails  to  form  national  Union  party,  346  f.; 
in  campaign  of  1851,  353;  elected  sen¬ 
ator,  358;  leads  Whig  minority  for  Web¬ 
ster,  1852,  361. 

Toombs,  Stephens,  and  Cobb  Correspondence, 
cited,  38,  72,  124,  130  ff.,  142,  146,  150  f., 
154,  159,  163  ff..  168,  172  ff.,  179,  183  f., 
187  ff.,  196,  198,  204,  208  f.,  239,  250, 
252,  271,  274,  277,  279  ff.,  286,  288, 
299  f.,  362. 

Towns,  G.  W.,  Ill  n.,  155,  207  f.,  223, 
247,  283,  324,  334,  355;  becomes  south¬ 
ern-rights  Democrat,  106;  on  old  state- 
rights  group  in  1850,  108  n.,  300;  mem- 


INDEX 


405 


Fer  national  House,  140;  runs  for  gov¬ 
ernor,  1847,  140,  144;  elected,  151;  pre¬ 
serves  party  harmony,  1849,  198;  runs 
again  for  governor,  198;  strong  southern- 
rights  stand,  200;  personal  habits  at¬ 
tacked,  205;  reelected,  208-211;  message 
to  Assembly,  217  f. ;  urges  state  conven¬ 
tion,  218;  reaction  to  message,  219;  spe¬ 
cial  message  on  Connecticut  resolutions, 
227  f. ;  given  power  to  fill  vacancies  at 
Nashville,  231;  appoints  delegates  to  Nash¬ 
ville,  2’64  f.;  calls  state  convention,  295  f . ; 
reaction  to  call,  296-298;  asked  by  South 
Carolina  governor  if  Georgia  will  “lead 
off,”  300;  warns  him  Georgia  Unionists 
in  great  majority,  300;  requests  Carolina 
to  “hold  back”  and  not  antagonize  Geor¬ 
gia,  301;  assured  Carolina  will  “hold 
back,”  301;  gives  advance  approval  to 
Carolina  governor’s  proclamation,  301; 
burlesque  of  his  convention  proclamation, 
318  f . ;  “awfully  cut”  by  convention  elec¬ 
tions,  334. 

Townsend,  J.,  Present  Peril  of  the  Southern 
States,  cited,  41. 

Trescott,  W.  H.,  Position  and  Cause  of  the 
South,  cited,  289. 

Troup,  G.  M.,  123;  and  “Troup  party,” 
91  f.;  elected  delegate  to  Nashville,  264; 
refuses  to  attend  second  session,  234  n. ; 
nominated  for  presidency  by  secessionists, 
1852,  361  f. 

Troup  Party,  origins  of,  91;  distribution 
of,  91  f . ;  becomes  State  Rights  party,  93. 

“Tugaloes,”  see  Union  Democrats. 

Turner,  J.  A.,  “William  C.  Dawson,”  cited, 
99,  104,  126. 

“Tybee,”  Savannah  correspondent  of  Balti¬ 
more  Sun,  on  Berrien,  316  n. ;  predicts 
Union  victory  in  Georgia,  318;  gives  best 
accounts  of  state  convention  campaign, 
318  n.;  calls  Union  victory  unprecedented 
triumph,  321  f. 

Tyler,  John,  126,  131. 

Tyson,  Briant,  The  Institution  of  Slavery 
in  the  Southern  States,  cited,  39,  41. 

“Ultraists,”  see  Southern-rights  Democrats. 

Union,  The,  see  also  Federal  Government, 
Secession;  9,  45  f.,  51,  90,  95,  126,  149, 
180,  184,  193,  215,  221,  232,  247,  268, 
270,  291,  309,  316,  328,  344;  attitude  of 
Georgia  planters  towards,  49-53;  South 
Carolina’s  attitude  towards,  53  f.,  57; 
supported  by  immigrants  in  Georgia,  89; 
traditional  love  for,  in  Georgia,  96,  98, 
151,  268,  273,  281  f.,  293,  293  n.,  326, 
333;  threatened  by  the  North,  152  f. ; 
fear  for,  in  South,  152,  180,  219;  need 
for  general  compromise  to  save,  29,  249; 
fear  for,  in  North,  242;  northern  “Union 
Meetings,”  242;  Georgia  reaction  to,  246, 
246  n.;  southern-rights  men  claim  to  pre¬ 
serve,  310-312,  318,  344  f . ;  saved  by 
Georgia  Union  victory,  337-342;  finally 
preserved  for  decade,  1851,  355  f. 

Union  Democrats,  see  Clark  Party;  149,  190, 
217;  origin  in  old  Clark  party,  105;  dis¬ 
tribution  of,  105;  friction  with  southern- 
rights  Democrats,  105-107,  109,  115  f., 
140  f.,  164,  182  f.,  197  ff.,  204  f.,  225  ff., 
244  ff.,  278  f.,  386  ff. ;  in  “Southern 
Caucus,”  182  f.;  termed  “submissionist 
wing,”  198;  view  “right  of  secession”  as 
constitutional  one,  201  f.,  288,  351; 

minority  of  party  in  Assembly,  1849, 
217;  support  Missouri  line,  224-227;  plan 
Union  party,  236,  287;  break  with  ex¬ 


tremist  group,  386  ff. ;  view  Compromise 
as  unsatisfactory  and  “last  concession,” 
314  f . ;  help  to  form  Union  party,  334  I.; 
fail  to  support  national  Union  organiza¬ 
tion,  345-347;  claim  recognition  by  na¬ 
tional  Democracy,  347  f . ;  delegation  to 
national  convention  seated  with  Southern- 
rights  delegation,  359  f. ;  refuse  to  join 
Southern-rights  party,  1852,  360;  numbers 
of,  1850-1852,  360  n.;  last  effort  for 

Union  party  fails,  361;  run  independent 
Pierce  ticket,  361;  join  Southern-rights 
party  in  reunited  Democracy,  1853,  362. 

Union  party,  of  1833,  see  Clark  Party. 

Union  Party,  71  f.,  362;  supported  by  Irish 
and  Germans,  89;  new  Assembly  align¬ 
ments  suggestive  of,  225  f . ;  first  origins 
of,  in  gerrymander  struggle,  1850,  235  f.; 
impetus  given  to,  by  Macon  Mass  Meet¬ 
ing,  286  f. ;  Union  victory  in  state  con¬ 
vention  election,  319-323;  state  conven¬ 
tion  practically  a  meeting  of,  326;  finally 
organized  in  convention,  334  f. ;  called 
“Whiggery  in  disguise,”  336;  Whigs’ 
need  of,  345;  approved  by  Fillmore  ad¬ 
ministration,  345  n. ;  projected  national 
organization  fails,  346  f.;  adapted  only  to 
state  politics,  348;  names  used  by,  348  n. ; 
holds  “Macon  Union  Celebration,”  349; 
state  convention  of,  1851,  351;  evades 
“right  of  secession”  issue,  351;  declares 
old  Whig  principles  dead  issues,  351  n.; 
nominates  Cobb  for  governor,  351;  main¬ 
tains  pro-Union  issue,  351-354;  makes  eco¬ 
nomic  appeal  for  Union,  354,  354  n.; 
wins  great  victory,  1851,  354;  victory 
leads  to  distintegration,  356;  Whigs  fear 
for,  356  f. ;  agitates  slavery  issue,  1851, 
357;  holds  together  in  Assembly,  1852, 
358;  state  convention  of,  1852,  divided, 
359;  lingering  attachment  to,  summer, 
1852,  360;  last  effort  to  preserve,  fails, 
361. 

United  States  Bank,  in  Georgia  politics, 
126  n.,  142. 

United  States  Law  Magazine,  cited,  36. 

United  States  Treasury,  Report  of,  1855, 
on  prices  of  exported  cotton,  cited,  22; 
on  textile  manufacturing,  cited,  25. 

Upper  Georgia,  174;  divisions  of,  11;  climate 
and  resources  of,  11;  gold  rush  to  and 
early  settlements,  12;  trade  with  Charles¬ 
ton  and  Savannah,  14  f.,  17,  56-61,  305  f. ; 
character  of  people  of,  67  f.;  similar  to 
New  England,  68;  race  problem  in,  69, 
76,  105;  attitude  towards  slavery  and  the 
“slavocracy,”  69-72,  105,  250;  political 

results  thereof,  72  f.;  old  Union  party  in, 
100;  favors  Jackson,  100  f. ;  illiteracy 
and  politics  in,  121;  fifth  and  sixth  dis¬ 
tricts  in,  Democratic,  171;  supports 
“Minority  Address,”  1849,  187  f. ;  oppo¬ 
sition  to  Proviso  uncertain,  245;  Union 
feeling  in,  1850,  249-251,  254;  Nashville 
election  county  votes  in,  258  n. 

Van  Buren,  Martin,  101,  103,  206;  Free- 
Soil  nominee,  1848,  163. 

Van  Evrie,  J.  H.j  Negroes  and  Negro  Slav¬ 
ery,  cited,  39,  44. 

Virginia,  25,  70,  187  f.,  269,  302;  early  set¬ 
tlers  from,  in  Georgia,  11,  90  f. ;  resolu¬ 
tions  against  Proviso,  137,  139,  141,  185  f., 
198. 

Wade,  J.  D.,  Augustus  Baldwin  Longstreet, 
cited,  31. 

Wallace,  Daniel,  213. 


406 


GEORGIA  AND  THE  UNION  IN  1850 


War  of  1812,  Georgia  editor  mobbed  for 
opposing,  119. 

Ward,  J.  E.,  Savannah  Union  Democrat, 
287;  sees  governor,  334. 

Warner,  Judge  Obediah,  111  n.;  of  northern 
origin,  85;  delegate  to  Nashville,  265. 

Washington,  see  District  of  Columbia. 

Washington  Monument,  Georgia  stone  for, 
334,  334  n. 

Washington  National  Intelligencer,  accused 
of  “garbeling”  southern  press  extracts, 
252  n.,  259  n. 

Washington  Southern  Press,  advocated  by 
Georgia  delegate  at  Nashville,  270;  reports 
Macon  Mass  Meeting  successful,  284;  as¬ 
serts  Georgia  will  secede,  285;  and  all 
South  will  follow  her,  297. 

Washington  Union,  202,  359  n. ;  claims 
National  Intelligencer  garbled  southern 
press  extracts,  252  n.,  259  n.;  reports 
Macon  Mass  Meeting  failure,  284  f. 

Webster,  Daniel,  “Seventh  of  March 
Speech,”  241,  246. 

Weed,  Thurlow,  Autobiography ,  cited,  237. 

Wellborn,  M.  J.,  307;  Democratic  repre¬ 
sentative,  237  n.;  opposes  Clay  Compro¬ 
mise,  240;  finally  accepts  it,  267;  ad¬ 
dressee  constituents,  282,  282  n. 

West,  The,  trade  with  southern  seaboard, 
17,  57,  59. 

West  Point  (Ga.),  18. 

Western  and  Atlantic  Railroad,  plans  for, 
17. 

Weston,  G.  M.,  Poor  Whites,  cited,  75; 
Progress  of  Slavery,  cited,  38,  44,  47, 
75  f.,  308. 

Whig  Party,  see  State-Rights  Party,  Polit¬ 
ical  Parties;  173,  177,  180,  189  f.,  195  f., 

206  f.;  papers  urge  manufacturing,  24  f.; 
origins  in  Georgia  and  nation,  101;  Geor¬ 
gia  Whigs  hold  to  party,  1840,  102  f.,; 
revolt  of  state-rights  Whigs,  101,  103  f., 
278;  composition  of,  in  Georgia,  107  ff . ; 
reverses  constitutional  and  tariff  princi¬ 
ples,  107-109;  the  planters'  party,  110, 

•192;  attitude  towards  democracy,  112-116; 
Journals,  116-118;  supports  Texan  annex¬ 
ation,  127;  evades  annexation  issue,  129- 
131;  unity  threatened  by  extension  issue, 
131,  134-136;  opposition  to  Mexican  War, 
131,  138,  152-154;  northern  Whigs  sup¬ 
port  Proviso,  132;  Georgia  Whigs  op¬ 
pose  extension,  134-136,  138,  154;  state 
convention,  1847,  142-144;  evades  national 
issues,  145,  154;  opposes  southern  move¬ 
ment,  146;  wins  slight  Assembly  major¬ 
ity,  1847,  151  f. ;  backs  Taylor  for  nomi¬ 
nation,  1848,  160-62;  state-rights  minority 
holds  to  Clay  and  old  principles,  161  f . ; 
agrees  to  recognize  national  party  con¬ 
vention,  161  f. ;  nominates  Taylor,  163; 
tactics  in  1848,  167-170;  elects  Taylor, 
175  f.,  176;  urges  conservatism  after  elec¬ 
tion  of  1848,  178-180;  in  “Southern 
Caucus,”  182  f.;  reaction  to  Caucus,  191, 
192;  encourages  Democratic  factionalism, 
195;  ridicules  Democratic  claim  to  sec¬ 
tional  preference,  198  f. ;  state  convention, 
1849,  199;  campaign  tactics,  198,  201,  205, 

207  f. ;  views  “right  of  secession”  as 
revolutionary,  201  f.,  288,  351;  defeated, 
1849,  208-211;  minority  in  Assembly,  209, 
217;  Assembly  Whigs  swing  to  southern- 
rights  position,  1849-1850,  221  ff. ;  splits 
in  Assembly,  225  ff. ;  conservatives  oppose 
California  clauses  in  resolutions  and  con¬ 
vention  bill,  227-230;  conservatives  bolt 


Assembly  in  gerrymander  struggle,  235;  j 
lay  plans  for  Union  party,  236;  Georgia 
Whigs  bolt  in  Congress,  237  f.;  prepares 
for  trouble,  245,  248;  welcomes  signs  of 
compromise,  245;  contrast  between  Geor-  % 
gia  editors  and  congressmen,  245,  251; 
ignores  Nashville  Convention  elections, 

257  f. ;  reaction  to  elections,  258  f. ;  at¬ 
tendance  at  Nashville,  264  f.;  views  Com¬ 
promise  as  unsatisfactory  and  “last  con¬ 
cession,”  314  f;  conducts  pro-Union  cam-  \ 
paign,  July-Nov.,  1850,  281-283,  303-319; 
helps  to  form  Union  party,  334  f. ;  net 
effect  of  1850  campaign  on,  343;  need  for 
Union  party  alignment,  345;  fails  to  form 
national  organization,  1851,  345-347;  fears 
for  Union  party,  356  f. ;  agitates  slavery 
issue,  1851,  357;  national  party  impos¬ 
sible  for  many  Georgians,  1852,  357  f. ; 
sends  delegation  to  national  convention, 
1852,  359;  finally  splits  with  Union  Demo¬ 
crats,  361;  divides  between  Scot  and 
Webster  tickets,  1852,  361;  defeated,  361; 
defeated,  1853,  362. 

“White  basis”  of  representation,  adopted  by 
Georgia  constitutional  convention  of  1833, 

112;  defeated  in  referendum,  112;  de¬ 
feated  in  state  convention  of  1839,  112  n.; 
abandoned  as  issue  by  Georgia  Democracy, 

112  n. 

White,  G.  M.,  Georgia  Statistics,  cited,  10, 

65,  68,  92. 

White  Race,  64,  74;  forms  majority  of  L 
Georgia  population,  1850,  13;  lowest  so-  k 
cial  groups  in,  74  78;  race  pride  of  “poor  % 
whites,”  75. 

Wilmot,  David,  167;  motive  for  introducing  * 
Proviso,  132,  132  n. 

Wilmot  Proviso,  138  ff.,149  f.,  160,  163  ff.,  4 
168,  179  f.,  185  f.,  194,  199,  201  n.,  213,  / 
218,  220,  223,  232,  237,  243,  245  f.,  262;  9 
favored  by  southern  poor  whites,  72;  in-  1 
troduced,  132;  motive  of  introduction,  9 
132;  united  southern  opposition  to,  in  « 
Congress,  132  f . ;  early  indifference  to,  in  ■ 
Georgia,  133  f . ;  reintroduced,  1847,  134; 
northern  support  of,  134;  reaction  of  I 
Georgia  congressmen  to,  134  136;  de-  ■ft 
feated,  1847,  137;  condemned  by  Georgia  J 
parties,  141,  143;  issue  in  state  campaign,  1 

1847,  144  f.,  151;  in  Assembly.  152-154;  1 
Georgia  united  against,  153,  245;  termed  #i 
“abstraction,”  156;  Georgian’s  reasons  for  j 
opposing,  156,  157;  principle  of,  applied  A 
to  Oregon,  159;  issue  in  state  campaign, 

1848,  167;  effort  to  adopt,  1849,  181;  I 
issue  in  state  campaign,  1849,  200  f.;  I 
issue  in  Assembly,  1850,  223-227. 

Wofford,  W.  T.,  Union  Democratic  leader,  I 
224;  Missouri  line  resolution  of,  debated  ||Q 
in  Assembly,  224-227;  suggested  for  gov-  I 
ernor,  236;  in  state  convention,  325. 

Woodward,  Mrs.  R.  H.  (Julia  Brooks),  let-  I 
ter  from,  cited,  83,  87. 

Wright,  Judge,  attacks  slavocracy,  in  Upper  j 
Georgia  meetings,  1850,  250. 

Wylie,  L.  B.,  Memoirs  of  Judge  Richard  H. 
Clark,  cited,  82  f. 

Yancey,  W.  L.,  180,  312;  southern-rightaf  V 
leader,  165;  repudiates  Democratic  nomijl 
nations,  1848,  166;  at  Macon  Mass  Meetlk 
ing,  1850,  284  f. ;  declares  South  unitecfl 
on  “Georgia  Platform,”  340  f. ;  defeated,* 
1851,  355. 

“Yankees,”  see  Northerners. 

Yazoo  frauds,  and  origin  of  Georgia  parties, 

90  f. 


■ 

'  ,  V 


975.8  S561Gr  0.3 

95020 

Shryock 

Georgia  and  the 

Union  in 

1850 

975,8  S561G  cop, 3 


95030 


